Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

VALERIE MARY HILL AND ALAN MONK (MARRIAGE ENABLING) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Honda Company (Swindon Site)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the Honda company concerning engine manufacture and full car production at its Swindon site; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): My Department holds discussions with Honda from time to time, as with any other potential inward investor in the United Kingdom. Such discussions are commercially confidential.

Mr. Hughes: What is the Minister doing to protect the interests of British Leyland, bearing in mind all the money that has been invested in that firm and all the jobs that are involved? If Honda is allowed to engage in car production, will the Minister ensure that there is a high level of local content? Will the Minister state whether Honda will be allowed to import built-up cars, as some other multinationals are doing? Finally, what is the Minister doing about the location? Why does he not persuade Honda to go to a development area, or has his bargaining power been undermined by the changes in regional aid?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman will have read in the newspapers that Honda has publicly stated that it has as yet no firm plans either for an engine making plant or full car production in the United Kingdom. If Honda or any other Japanese or foreign company were to think of investing in the United Kingdom and approached the Government about it, one of the facts that we would consider would be the effect that it would have on producers in the United Kingdom. That would also influence any decision about assistance towards a plant in a development area, or any of the assisted areas. We would certainly consider the effect on existing producers.

Mr. Roger King: Will my hon. Friend consider extremely carefully any proposal that may come from

companies, such as Honda, to produce vehicles in the United Kingdom, bearing in mind the over-capacity in the European manufacturing network, which is further exacerbated by the intention of Nissan to increase its output to 200,000 units a year, and the fact that any additional capacity must have a grave effect on the employment prospects in the existing motor industry?

Mr. Lamont: Obviously, we would take into account what my hon. Friend says about capacity. That is what I meant when I replied to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) about the effect on existing producers. We would also consider the degree of United Kingdom content that was to be in any project, exactly as we did for the Nissan plant. I hope that hon. Members will not go overboard about the matter. If a company wishes to come to the United Kingdom, does not want a Government grant, is not going to an assisted area and wants to invest some of its own money in manufacturing capacity, we do not have the power to stop it coming. It might think it rather odd if we tried.

Mr. Williams: The Minister has just sought to reassure the House, but we, too, want to be sure that he will give adequate consideration to the needs and interests of existing car and component manufacturers in the United Kingdom. Will he bear in mind that as this matter comes so soon after the massive cut of £300 million a year in regional aid, it would be seen as a massive betrayal of the areas of highest unemployment if he used section 8 of the Industry Act 1972 to give comparable or better terms to such an employer to go outside assisted areas?

Mr. Lamont: We have not been approached for assistance either inside or outside an assisted area, and so the question does not arise. If the question of aid did arise, as I have already said twice, we would take into account the effect on existing manufacturers. However, I must stress to the House that if a person wants to invest hundreds of millions of pounds of his own money in new manufacturing capacity in the United Kingdom, the decision is essentially for him, although obviously we shall take those factors into account.

Protectionism

Mr. Alan Howarth: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he intends that Britain should take internationally to curb protectionism.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): The United Kingdom, through the European Commission, challenges protectionist measures in other countries and upholds its rights under the GATT. We support proposals for a new GATT round which will play an important role in reinforcing the open trading system. We also press for freer trade in our regular bilateral contacts with other Governments.

Mr. Howarth: I welcome my right hon. Friend's robust support of free trade, but what advice—equally robust, I hope — would he give to those in the United States currently advocating a 20 per cent. import surcharge to cope with balance of payment problems?

Mr. Tebbit: It would be most regrettable if United States industry sought to solve difficulties made in the United States at the expense of the rest of the world. The


United States steel industry, in particular, has some way to go in changing certain rigidities and methods of doing business.

Mr. Park: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not all countries take such an upright approach as he does and that this operates to the detriment of our exporters?

Mr. Tebbit: Few Governments and few people take such an upright approach as I do, but it usually pays in the long run.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend consider taking steps to protect horse riders in this country by banning the import of non-BSI-approved riding hats?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend raises a mildly esoteric point. Unusually for me, I should like notice of the matter and will write to my hon. Friend about it.

Mr. Ashdown: Was the proposed 20 per cent. import surcharge discussed by the Prime Minister on her recent visit to Washington, and, if so, what were the results? If British goods were to be covered by the surcharge, would that not be further proof that the Prime Minister's visit to Washington was more an ego trip for herself than of any benefit to Britain?

Mr. Tebbit: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that whenever he gets to his feet he is on an ego trip. If he had listened to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday he would know that she raised with the United States Administration the threat of protectionism. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate, however, that even in the perhaps somewhat overheated atmosphere of last year's election in the United States the President and the Administration were robust in resisting calls for protectionism, and I hope that they will remain so.

Mr. Hanley: I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative in trying to get another round of GATT talks going, but is he aware that there is increasing protectionism in the United States and the suggestion of almost Socialist limits on imports and financial quotas? As with unilateral disarmament, will my right hon. Friend avoid throwing away the one area in which our own exporters can achieve some protection by imposing such measures on others?

Mr. Tebbit: I am not a believer in unilateral disarmament in this or any other matter, but there is a clear need for a great deal of disarmament in the matter of protectionism. I hope that we shall continue to be able to persuade the United States that its own interests, as much as those of the rest of the world, lie in free trade.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much it has cost to import oil and coal into Britain during the present coal industry dispute; and from which countries these imports have come.

Mr. Norman Lamont: In 1984, imports of coal and oil amounted to £8·8 billion. Figures for each country are published in the December edition of Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister think that the CEGB is acting legally in running up a £2 billion debt, and how does it intend to finance that enormous deficit? Does he

agree that the issue should be debated in Parliament on the basis of figures provided by the Government rather than leaks in the press?

Mr. Lamont: As the hon. Lady well knows, issues concerning the CEGB are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I shall not comment on other issues related to the miners' strike, save to express the hope that the hon. Lady will add her voice to those urging a return to work to get this ghastly strike over.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on the cost to British industry of the restrictions imposed on the CEGB for many years with regard to coal imports, and on how many jobs have been lost in British industry because British coal is far too expensive?

Mr. Lamont: Obviously we need an internationally competitive coal industry. Matters such as the CEGB and the coal industry are for my rght hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. Barron: Is the Minister aware that in the last 12 months, because of the dollar-sterling exchange rate, the price of coal imported into Britain for industry has increased by nearly 50 per cent.? Is he further aware that many pits which have been classified by the Government as uneconomic could now be described as economic in view of that expensive imported coal?

Mr. Lamont: We do not want to have to import coal, and we want an internationally competitive coal industry. Opposition Members and Mr. Scargill and their friends seem determined not to protect but to destroy jobs in Britain and to protect the jobs of American, Australian and German coalminers, from whose countries we have had to import coal.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the aid that the Soviet Union has given to maintain the coal strike in this country has been the best investment that the Soviet Union could have made, as it has enabled it to sell us substantial quantities of coal that it would not otherwise have been able to do?

Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend has said. The fellow Socialist workers of the Soviet Union and Poland seem to have taken the maximum advantage of the situation, which they obviously do not see as a pre-revolutionary one.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Minister agree that the tragedy of the present dispute is that our balance of payments could have benefited enormously from increased coal exports had we had security of supply and an increasingly competitive industry, rather than one that is being dragged down at tha tail end by uneconomic pits that are making coal prices too high?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is 100 per cent. right. Inside our coal industry is a successful coal industry trying to get out. This country, with its enormous riches — 300 years' supply of coal — should be exporting coal and using the coal industry as a wealth generator, not as a wealth consumer.

TUC (General Secretary)

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Tebbit: I met Trades Union Congress leaders, including the general secretary, on 12 March 1984 when the subjects discussed included industrial restructuring, Government support for research and development and regional policy, as well as industrial policy in the European Community.

Mr. Lofthouse: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time that he met the general secretary of the TUC again? If he did, would he be able to explain why he has no plans to encourage jobs in mining communities, which, by their policies, the Government are out to destroy? Would he be able to tell him what hope exists for youngsters in areas such as mine, where 42 per cent. of all 25-year-olds are out of work? Would he be able to tell him what the prospects are for young miners whose only crime has been to have been on strike, to have pilfered morsels of coal and to have lost their jobs?

Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that if the TUC general secretary wishes to come and discuss those matters with me, he will get in touch with me. He has not yet done so, no doubt because he has been too busy trying to talk some sense into such an obdurate man as Mr. Scargill.

Mr. Hickmet: If my right hon. Friend has a further meeting with the leadership of the TUC, as he has been invited to do, will he invite Mr. Willis to try to talk some sense into the leaders of the railway unions so that the railways can start moving ore and steel into the steelworks of Britain, a situation, which is continuing to cost the British Steel Corporation about £3·5 million a week? What effect does he think that this continuing policy will have on railwaymen's jobs?

Mr. Tebbit: It is clear that if the policy that has been pursued by some railwaymen of blacking coal trains were to continue, it would have a serious effect on the jobs of railwaymen and the finances of British Rail. It would probably be best, therefore, for the railwaymen whose jobs are being put at risk to have a word with their union leaders and put those leaders straight and remind them that their jobs are at risk unless they do what is in the interest of the membership.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: When the TUC met the Secretary of State and discussed regional policy, did it raise with him the proposal being studied by the Minister of State to reduce the grant-in-aid to the North of England Development Ccouncil by up to 30 per cent.? In view of the ever worsening employment figures in the north of England, does he not think that instead of reducing the grant he should increase it to allow for an additional promotional effort? Is it not high time he said to the Minister of State, "Knock it off, Norman, it is not on"?

Mr. Tebbit: I suppose that is something which could be said both ways these days between the general secretary and me — I do not know. The general secretary would indeed have had to be endowed with great gifts of prophecy had he raised the matter on 12 March 1984. In regard to the merits of the issue, if the general secretary wants to come and talk to me about the matter, he is free to ask to do so. Of course, what the hon. Gentleman should remember is that the amounts of money which have been made available for the purposes of which he speaks have been increased.

British Aerospace

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met British Aerospace representatives to discuss the future of the company.

The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): I see the chairman of British Aerospace plc and his senior colleagues frequently.

Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. Friend not recognise that the future of the company will be in grave jeopardy if the European fighter aircraft project does not go ahead? Does he not agree that jobs in my constituency and in many other constituencies and the British aerospace industry as a whole will be affected adversely if something does not happen shortly? Does he not recognise that that would cost the Exchequer a great deal in lost tax and in the payment of more unemployment benefit? Does he not agree that it would be better to let the project go ahead and keep people at work?

Mr. Pattie: My hon. Friend no doubt knows that the Government and my Department in particular are fully aware of the issues he raises. The question is less one of when and whether the project will go forward, than of one in what form. That is what is occupying our attention at present.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is the Minister aware of the difficulties that have arisen about selling the super 748 to the LIAT company? Is he aware that 10 countries wanted the 748, that the airline wanted it and that the Caribbean Bank wanted it, but that the European Commissioner said no? Will he ensure that the European Commissioner does not say no in future?

Mr. Pattie: I cannot give the House an undertaking that I can prevent any European Commissioner saying no in future. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the satisfactory outcome that appears to be in prospect in regard to that matter. The Government have offered support in the form of grant-aid from the aid trade provision representing 38 per cent. of the value of the British Aerospace bid. The balance of the contract price has been offered on normal terms.

Mr. Warren: Bearing in mind the way in which my hon. Friend is always keen to promote exports, will he consider the difficulties that beset British Aerospace, in that if it cannot get export credit guarantee cover for exporting, it should not be expected to pay a levy of 7·5 per cent. to the Ministry of Defence on a successful sale? Will he have words with his opposite number in the Ministry of Defence to try to introduce some rationale?

Mr. Pattie: These matters are frequently the subject of close exchanges between my right hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence and our Department.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that British Aerospace is not dependent upon the award of the contract for the RAF basic trainer, whereas Short Bros in Belfast would be justified in having that contract, since it receives only 2 per cent. of defence work?

Mr. Pattie: I hope the hon. Gentleman and the House will agree that the prime consideration has to be the technical acceptability of the aeroplane for the needs of the Royal Air Force. Only when that has been assessed — that process has not yet been completed by the Ministry


of Defence — can consideration be given to any of the matters which the hon. Gentleman has rightly brought to the attention of the House.

Small Businesses

Mr. Lightbown: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will complete his Department's repackaging exercises on assistance to small businesses and publish the new literature.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. David Trippier): My hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology announced on 12 November 1984 that new arrangements for regrouping all the Department's assistance schemes would be introduced within five months. That remains our intention. We shall make a further announcement nearer the time when the change takes place.

Mr. Lightbown: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his repackaging and rescheduling of the programme. What are his future intentions for presentation?

Mr. Trippier: I should point out to my hon. Friend that I am paid. I am not paid enough, but I am paid. The presentation arrangements will be the subject of a detailed announcement before they are introduced. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in July 1984, they involve grouping the supportive measures of the Department of Trade and Industry under four headings: support for advisory services, support for investment, support for innovation and support for exports.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister take a leaf out of the Scottish Development Agency's book and publish a guide for England similar to the one that is already published in Scotland, which outlines clearly and in one publication the assistance that is available to small industries north of the border?

Mr. Trippier: We have already produced an effective and, I think, widely accepted document entitled "Help for Growing Businesses" and another one that is called "How to Make Your Business Grow", which has met with wide support throughout the country. I am considering publishing a guide that could be fitted into the pocket which would provide a signposting service to those important people we are trying to help who are running small businesses.

Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when he continues with his exercise of assistance to small businesses he will produce in due course a legislative framework which will ensure that there is a coherent policy for small businesses?

Mr. Trippier: As I said in a debate on a private Member's Bill on 18 January 1985, I am concerned about the number of initiatives that are coming forward. There may need to be some composite framework to enable initiatives to be brought forward. The most important thing that the Government can do is to concentrate on the economic environment in which small businesses operate.

Privatisation

Mr. Neil Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the performance of those businesses which his Department has returned to the private sector, whilst retaining a financial interest.

Mr. Tebbit: Not merely satisfied, but pleased and encouraged.

Mr. Hamilton: My right hon. Friend will be reassured to know that his opinion on these matters coincides with my own. Will he confirm that all the businesses that his Department has returned to the private sector have improved their performance as a result? As this makes jobs both more numerous and more secure, we all look forward to his pressing ahead with privatisation in other areas.

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, in general all the businesses which have been returned to the private sector have been doing very well, for example, Cable and Wireless, British Aerospace, Jaguar, Tyne Shiprepairers, Allied Steel and Wire, Inmos, and Goole shipyard. The House may be interested in the example of Cable and Wireless. Since privatisation its profits have nearly trebled. The Government's income from our 23 per cent. holding is now roughly the same as that which we received when we were the sole shareholder. Our 23 per cent. stake has a stock market valuation of over £500 million, which is a little more than the valuation of the entire company when we first sold 50 per cent.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: But what about the future of Johnson Matthey? Why is access being denied to the records of the company? Is something being hidden?

Mr. Tebbit: It has not been privatised. It does not arise on this question.

Mr. Hill: Can my right hon. Friend give an update to the House on the privatisation of British Airways? We are all anxious that privatisation should go ahead, and an update from him would be useful.

Mr. Tebbit: We are so closely approaching the further sale of shares in British Aerospace that it would be wise for me, not to say anything about that matter without careful consideration. British Airways is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and I hope that he will be able to make a statement in the not too distant future which will presage the launch of British Airways back into the private sector.

Mr. Crowther: Does the Secretary of State agree that the establishment of Sheffield Forgemasters, which, if I remember rightly, was code named Phoenix III, has been a near disaster, not just for the British Steel Corporation but for the private sector company involved? In connection with the Phoenix II scheme involving a merger of BSC Special Steels with the GKN Brimbo works, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that GKN is now advertising in the South Yorkshire Press for a manager with experience of continuous casting for its Brimbo works where there is no continuous casting at the moment? Does that not support the view that I have expressed before that Phoenix II will not happen?

Mr. Tebbit: There is no guarantee of success merely because of privatisation. It is the lack of guarantee that makes success far more likely. There was no guarantee of success for the firms involved in Sheffield Forgemasters or the possible participants in Phoenix II. There is no guarantee of success if those parts stay in the public sector. The hon. Gentleman characteristically forgot to mention Allied Steel and Wire, which is by far the biggest privatisation and is extremely successful.

Mr. Alton: Does the Secretary of State believe that, since its return to the private sector, British Telecom has taken sufficient cognisance of the effects on British industry and the consumer of its procurement policy and, in particular, its decision to purchase the derived services system from AT and T and its decision on system Y? Does he agree that the long-term interests of British industry and consumers should come before short-term profit motives?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, I do. That is why it is wise to put such firms back into the private sector where such long-term considerations are not distorted by short-term political considerations.

Mr. Sayeed: As the Tornado aircraft is of considerable importance to at least one of the companies properly denationalised, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a great shame that the Treasury is denying ECGD facilities for the sale to Turkey of 40 Tornado aircraft, which amounts to about £1 billion?

Mr. Tebbit: I have no information that such an order has been placed nor that the Treasury, as opposed to ECGD, which is part of my Department, has denied credit to cover such an order. It could not be, since an order has not been placed. The whole raison d'être of exporting, like any other form of business, is to ensure that one sells to a customer who is well able to afford the purchase price and accept the credit terms that might be involved.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: With regard to British Telecom, is the Secretary of State aware that BT's imminent decisions to purchase an alternative switching system to that of system X from an overseas manufacturer will have damaging consequences for United Kingdom telecom manufacturers, European co-operation and the export prospects of system X? He is anxious to take what credit he can. Will he now face his responsibilities? Does he agree that it is a matter for his attention under part I, section 3, of the Telecommunications Act 1984? It should be a matter under which he could give a general direction under part III of that Act to the Director General of Oftel to investigate the reason and the need for British Telecom to take that decision.

Mr. Tebbit: British Telecom has the prime duty of serving its consumers. That is of vital economic importance. It is one of the reasons why companies are now coming back from overseas into the City of London to enjoy good telecommunications facilities as opposed to the position when his Government were in office and British Telecom was being mucked around from one end of Whitehall to the other and companies were leaving the City of London because they could not get adequate telecommunications. In acting in the best interests of the consumer, British Telecom will be acting in the best interests of the British economy.

Small Workshops Scheme

Mr. Franks: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will make a statement about the review of the small workshops scheme.

Mr. Trippier: A statement will be made when the review of the scheme is complete.

Mr. Franks: Can my right hon. Friend comment on the success and encouragement of the private sector in the provision of workshops?

Mr. Trippier: The scheme has encouraged more private sector provision of workshops, without any doubt. Our preliminary study in 1982 found that the number of small workshops provided each year had probably tripled since the scheme was introduced.

Mr. Litherland: The Minister will be aware that there is something like 19 million sq ft of vacant industrial property in Manchester. If it is not put to good use for small business units or received.-tech, it will fall into dereliction and demolition. What is the Government's policy on the financing of refurbishment?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman may be impressed to hear that I made a regional official visit to Manchester to see some of the small workshops operating In his constituency and outside it. I found to my great surprise that some of the costs that were to be charged to the small business man were far too high. It has to be recognised that, certainly initially, the rents have to be relatively low to encourage these people to come into small workshops.

Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable interest in the scheme in Norfolk? Does he agree with me that it is imperative to keep it going, if only on a limited scale, applying to a smaller square footage?

Mr. Trippier: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I shall draw his attention to the remarks made by my hon. Friend.

Export Fairs

Mr. Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the budget for export fairs by the British Overseas Trade Board for 1985–86 and 1986–87.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): The net expenditure provision for the export promotion services administered by the British Overseas Trade Board is £27·7 million for 1985–86 and £27·4 million for 1986–87. The BOTB set out its provisional allocations of this money to individual programmes, including overseas trade fairs, in a consultation document circulated to industry last December, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. It will be reviewing the allocations in the light of comments received.

Mr. Freeman: Is my hon. Friend aware that shoe exports to the United States are booming at present, but the strong dollar will not last and the industry faces high and unfair tariff barriers against it, particularly in the Commonwealth and in that arch-protectionist country, Japan? Will he therefore ensure, when he sets the budget allocation for overseas fairs, that he targets that money against those countries that unfairly discriminate against us?

Mr. Butcher: I am delighted to hear of any industry that takes advantage of the favourable trading conditions now pertaining arising from the dollar exchange rate, and that the shoe industry in particular is now making its presence felt in that market. I am aware of a number of issues that my hon. Friend has raised on behalf of his constituents. We shall certainly take into account in the current review the comment that he has made.

Mr. Park: Is the Minister aware of the concern of the chemical industry about the proposed changes in the future


activities of the BOTB, because it believes that these changes could lead to lesser representation abroad and gaps which individual companies could not fill?

Mr. Butcher: One of the areas of concern has been the change that may result in less support for those who go regularly to the same markets and to the same sort of promotion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will draw some encouragement from the proposals made by the BOTB, which emphasise the support that should be given to the smaller firms, which are not represented in large measure in the chemical industry but are in most other industries, particularly the first-time visitor to a new market, for whom the contribution is being reduced.

Mr. Michael Morris: In carrying out this consultation, will my hon. Friend make sure that he has up-to-date information on what the French, Germans and Italians offer in this field, because from the evidence that I found in south-east Asia we are not yet competing on equal terms in this area?

Mr. Butcher: It is always difficult to compare like with like. With regard to this type of support measure, we believe that the United Kingdom has a level of support which is more or less par for the course. But, of course, there are other ways in which companies can support their trading efforts, and we keep these under constant surveillance. We are anxious to see that our own exporters have an equal chance when faced with these competitive discrepancies.

Mr. Ashdown: Is the Minister aware that there have been a number of instances recently where high technology firms, seeking to display their goods at export fairs, have been prevented from doing so because of the American Government seeking to apply their law in Britain? What steps will the Minister take to ensure that that does not happen in future?

Mr. Butcher: We have to keep the problem in its proper context. The hon. Gentleman and I had an exchange on it last Friday. Although we have to look after British interests, particularly in regard to new technology exports, we should be aware of the immense efforts that Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union are making to strip out strategic exports, particularly in certain delicate areas of software and information technology hardware.

Mr. Conway: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the level of co-ordination and co-operation between the British Overseas Trade Board and the regional development associations which sponsor trade missions and the various cultural missions to promote Britain abroad?

Mr. Butcher: I think it is all part of the general package to sell "UK Ltd." effort in the international markets. We are anxious to liaise with and support any measure that enhances the reputation of British goods abroad.

Scrap Iron and Steel (Exports)

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will use his powers to impose quotas on the export of scrap iron and steel.

Mr. Butcher: National controls could be imposed only on exports to third countries, not to the European

Community. In the absence of an EC export control regime, exports would simply be diverted via another member state, and the controls would be ineffective.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Minister aware that it is very worrying that he does not seem to appreciate the problems of British iron and steel foundries, which have been seriously affected because the price of scrap iron and steel has increased threefold in the past 18 months? Companies such as the Grahamston Iron Company in my constituency have worked hard, on the advice of the Government, to get themselves into a profitable situation, only to have their feet cut from under them by the Government's failure to take action on this very serious problem.

Mr. Butcher: I am very much aware of the current concerns of the foundrymen. I met a large number of them last Friday, representing several branches of their institute. They told me of their concern about scrap prices. We have to decide to what extent it is a temporary phenomenon—there is usually a peak in January and February—and the extent to which co-ordinated European Community action can be brought to bear on the problem. I am also aware of the problem regarding Spain. I believe that the question of the Italian subsidy has been satisfactorily resolved through the European Commission.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my hon. Friend accept that, obliged as we are to him for being much aware of the problem, that is no substitute for action in the matter? Is he aware that the reason for scrap metal prices rising threefold, damaging an already bereft industry, is Spain's protection of its steel industry, which enables it to pay more and more for scrap metal? Will the Minister be less aware and more active on our behalf?

Mr. Butcher: The question of Spanish practice in this connection will be resolved entirely when Spain comes into the European Community. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend says that he requires more action. That action must come within Europe. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will, if appropriate, make representations to the Steel Council if the current phenomenon looks like being permanently damaging.

Mr. Williams: Does the Minister realise that for him to suggest that we have to wait for the problem to be dealt with until Spain's accession to the Common Market is unforgivable indolence on the part of the Government?

Mr. Butcher: The right hon. Gentleman obviously does not understand two things. The first is that we have a surplus of scrap output of 4 million tonnes per annum. Therefore, within the European Community it is virtually impossible for us to take the measures that he requires.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman fails to understand that the scrap industry, which employs 100,000 people, is in itself a very significant employer. The industry must make its decisions on its marketing plans. We are concerned, and we shall take action if the particular phenomenon looks like doing the sort of damage that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) suspects that it may do.

Mr. Ewing: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Multi-fibre Arrangement

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest position regarding the negotiation of an extension of the multi-fibre arrangement.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The European Community will need to express a view in the GATT textiles committee in July of this year, on whether these restrictions should be extended, modified or discontinued. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has been consulting interested parties before deciding what line the United Kingdom should take.

Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that right hon. and hon. Members from Leicestershire and the east midlands will insist that this essential arrangement for knitwear and textiles be extended and that we shall want to see him pressing hard in the Common Market for an effective and realistic marketing policy?

Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend has said, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will as well. We take representations made by the knitting industry seriously. We have consulted trade bodies in the past few months.

Mr. James Lamond: Has the Minister seen the letter from the "Think British" campaign, which expresses deep anxiety lest the Silberston report be accepted by the Government and the multi-fibre arrangement be scrapped? Surely the Minister will not give any credence to that report when he realises that 67 per cent. of textiles in Britain are now being imported.

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman says that we should not give any credence to the report, but, with a sector that has been as protected as the textile industry—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Rubbish.

Mr. Lamont: Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) says, it is difficult to deny that textiles have been the most protected sector of British industry. It is plainly right that we should have some independent assessment of the cost to the consumer and to employment of that industry. It must be right to ask that question.

Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the textile and clothing industry is the fourth largest employer in the country, having at one time been the largest, but having been decimated by unfair competition during the past 50 years? Will he accept the view expressed by the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) and take on board the one recommendation from the Silberston report that makes sense — that the MFA be renewed in 1986? The rest of the report's recommendations are based on utterly unconvincing arguments and, according to the whole of the industry, on no sound evidence. Will my hon. Friend guarantee to continue the MFA?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is a strong advocate of the textile industry and has a strong constituency interest in it. I am sure he agrees that we must examine these matters from a wider, national point of view. We must consider the cost to the United Kingdom as a whole. I agree that the United Kingdom textile and clothing industry is a substantial employer — it accounts for 10 per cent. of employment in manufacturing industry. We

must take account of that, but Professor Silberston attempted to answer and qualify whether gains to employment elsewhere, outside my hon. Friend's constituency, could have been greater if there had not been such protection.

Mr. Winterton: And he came up with no evidence.

Mr. Lamont: It is sensible to ask and examine that question.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Minister aware that even Professor Silberston said, as a modest estimate, that 40,000 jobs would disappear if the MFA was phased out? Is he aware that his failure to give a firm commitment to renew the MFA causes great lack of confidence in the industry? Is he further aware that an extension of the MFA is wanted unanimously by employers and employees?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman must not leap to the conclusion that we have formed a decision on this matter. He misrepresents the Silberston report. I agree that it said that jobs would disappear in textiles, but it also said that other jobs would be created elsewhere in the economy as a result.

Mr. Winterton: But it did not say where.

Mr. Lamont: Professor Silberston said that prices in the United Kingdom would be 5 per cent. lower and that prices of imports would be 5 to 10 per cent. lower.

Mr. Winterton: But he gave no evidence at all.

Mr. Lamont: Such price reductions would help to create jobs. Any Government with the national interest at hear must ask and examine that question.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend recall that when the multi-fibre arrangement was first introduced it was for only a short time to allow the industry to become more modern? Does this not show that protectionism defends the inefficiencies of an industry and prevents it from becoming efficient? In addition, is not the MFA a direct attack on the consumer, adding to costs and high prices?

Mr. Winterton: Crass ignorance.

Mr. Lamont: I am glad to see that this issue arouses strong emotions both ways. I think that Professor Silberston demonstrated that many jobs in the textile industry would have disappeared, even with protection, because of increasing productivity and because so much of the competition for our textile and clothing industry has come from within the Common Market. That is where the greatest increase of imports has come from, not from the low-cost countries.

Mr. Gould: Has the Minister paid sufficient attention and given sufficient weight to the powerful, expert and conclusive criticism from all quarters of the methodology and conclusions of the Silberston report? Will he take this opportunity to dispel the strong impression that the Government do not care about the future of the textile industry? Will he repudiate the Silberston report and make it clear that the Government's policy is to negotiate a new and fully effective multi-fibre arrangement?

Mr. Lamont: The Government care about the textile industry and were responsible for the negotiation of the last round of the MFA. I have said to my hon. Friend the


Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that we recognise that it accounts for a large number of jobs, but it is legitimate and right for a Government to attempt to quantify the cost to the customer and the United Kingdom economy of that continuing protection. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has said that everybody criticises the methodology of the Silberston report. He is wrong. Some people, such as Samuel Brittan in the Financial Times two weeks ago, criticise it because it underestimates the cost to the economy and to the consumer. We have to take those things into account.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his robust defence of the consumer in opposing protectionism by measures such as the MFA. I look forward to his negotiating an agreement that will see the end of that in a few years. When and how will he take into account the opinion of the House before he comes to a view in his Department before going to Brussels in June?

Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and obviously the opinion of the House is important. I hope that, through the usual channels, we can arrange a debate so that opinion on this matter can be expressed. I am grateful for what he said about protectionism. I am sure that he will have noticed the contrast between what hon. Members have been saying in the past few seconds and what they were saying 25 minutes ago about protectionism in the United States.

Manufactured Goods

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the United Kingdom's share of world trade in manufactured goods in each of the last four years; and what are the trends in the current year.

Mr. Tebbit: In 1981 the United Kingdom share of world trade in manufactured goods was 6·25 per cent. This information is not available for later years.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that various estimates show that the proportion is decreasing? Is not one of the main reasons for that the fact that since 1979 investment in manufacturing industry has gone down by about 30 per cent. and that in 1984 we were importing £4,000 million worth more of manufactured goods than we were exporting? This is deplorable. What do the Government intend to do about it?

Mr. Tebbit: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: Never mind the pained expression.

Mr. Tebbit: It is a rather pained expression because I find it boring to try to teach the hon. Gentleman basic economics when he is not ready to learn them. I have heard the hon. Gentleman express sympathy for the cause of the less developed world and the newly industrialised countries. I should have thought he would understand that, as they come into the world of manufacturing exports, it is inevitable that the share of some other countries will be reduced and that he will want the developing countries to take a larger share.

Mr. Waller: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that our share of the world's manufacturing market is very seriously affected by the barriers that other countries may raise against us? When he considers a

successor multi-fibre arrangement, will he take into account the fact that the United States, which has a considerable market for textile imports, also operates considerable tariff barriers against imports? Will he also take into account the fact that if the European Community were to get rid of quotas without commensurate action being taken by the United States, it would have a serious effect upon industry, particularly upon employment?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, I shall, but my task in combating protectionism in the United States, particularly in textiles, will not be made any easier for me if I find, when I go to the United States, that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) have been quoted there, and I am told that a most robust defence of protectionism is being made and that it is members of the Government party who are making it. Hon Members ought to be encouraged by the fact that in 1984 our volume of manufactured exports rose by 8·5 per cent. over 1983. That is not a bad performance.

Mr. Gould: But is the Secretary of State aware that it is not the developing countries, but Japan, Germany, France and Italy which have taken our share of the trade in manufactured goods? We are by now familiar with the right hon. Gentleman's pretence that he is not worried about this decline, but will he now come clean and tell us what progress has been made by the special working party that he set up to look into the problem?

Mr. Tebbit: I am slightly mystified by this special working party, about which I myself have not heard. I do not want to be boring, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that what matters is not the balance of any particular sector, or any particular trading partner, but the overall balance of trade. Last year was the fifth year running of a surplus on our current account. That record is unsurpassed since 1945.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Oil.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman speaks of oil. I strongly suspect that if, in 20 years' time, the shadow Opposition spokesman on trade and industry says that the decline in our oil exports marks a total disaster for the British economy and my successor say, "But look at our manufactured exports," it will be dismissed as irrelevant. The one thing that the Opposition do not like is good news. That is why they have not quoted the latest CBI report on exports, particularly on manufactured exports.

Mr. Williams: But is the Secretary of State utterly oblivious of the fact that for the first time in the modern industrial history of this country there is a deficit on manufactured trade? Does he realise that any upturn in manufactured exports that there happens to be at the moment is due to the fall in the pound, a fall for which the Government insist that they have no responsibility?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman wants it both ways. I understand that yesterday his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition described the fall in the value of the pound as a great British disaster. Now the right hon. Gentleman is saying that it is very good for British industry. The only criticism today is that we were not responsible for it. I wish to God he would get together with his right hon. Friend so that there is some consistency in what they say. I have to repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that our manufactured exports are recovering very well,


that an 8·5 per cent. increase in volume over 12 months is not a bad record and that the CBI believes that the outlook is very, very good.

Information Technology (Skill Shortages)

Mr. Grylls: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is proposing to solve the problems of skill shortages in the information technology industries.

Mr. Butcher: My Department already supports a number of training initiatives in information technology. In addition, the information technology skill shortages committee, which I chair, will shortly be publishing its final report. That will sum up progress made in implementing recommendations already made by the committee, and will provide signposts for future action.

Mr. Grylls: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Obviously the Government have a real interest, but what are Ministers doing to persuade the industry that it should provide training to help provide the people needed?

Mr. Butcher: The first major result of our initial report on skill shortages has already been delivered, and that is the setting up of an information technology skills agency within the education foundation of the CBI. That will specifically charge itself with the channelling of private sector resources into our higher education sector. I hope that the new partnership, which is a market-driven link between industry and academia, will shortly be in place.

Mr. Hoyle: What steps will the Minister take about the £2 billion deficit in our trade and information technology? That was supposed to be one of the industries of the future. Will it now be another Government failure?

Mr. Butcher: The information technology industry in the United Kingdom, in terms of both hardware and software, is coming back strongly. There is not a pure deficit in information technology products if consumer electronics such as videos are excluded. But it is the case that the Government will do something about the skills shortage factor, which many of our electronics companies are saying is a major constraint on further development.

Mr. Michael Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not to be regretted that in one hour this afternoon we have covered only some 13 questions? Would the process of achieving greater productivity, which would be appropriate for trade and industry questions, be improved if two Opposition Front Bench spokesmen had not spoken on question 12?

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that some of us feel that the recent doctrine that you have introduced of calling two Front Bench spokesmen from the Labour Opposition during the course of statements and other such proceedings in the House is intolerable to Back Benchers who wish to speak. May we have an assurance that we will not now have a further extension of that doctrine, with two Labour Front Bench spokesmen being called on individual questions during Question Time?

Mr. Speaker: The Liberal and SDP alliance had no fewer than five questions called this afternoon. In relation to the numbers in the Chamber that is a fair measure.
Our productivity was not very high this afternoon, but the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) and the House know that I try to call hon. Members who have later questions on the Order Paper and no fewer than 12 of them were called this afternoon.

Mr. Barron: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) a bit ambiguous? As only one SDP Member is present, there has been no opportunity to call two of them.

Later—

Mr. Haynes: Further to a point of order raised earlier Mr. Speaker. You obviously did not see me sitting in the corner of the Chamber. A short time ago the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) raised a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Have not we dealt with that?

Mr. Haynes: No. This is a serious point. From time to time there are complaints and points of order from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House about the length of time taken by supplementary questions to Ministers and their replies. I think you will agree that there needs to be a hurrying up of questions and answers—[HON. MEMBERS: "And points of order."] The real problem is at the Government Dispatch Box. Today we have had the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spending far too much time attacking the Labour party when he should have been answering questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I may deal with the hon. Gentleman's general proposition, I think that both Front Benches will understand when I say that I am anxious to ensure that more Back Benchers are called. The longer the time taken by Front Benchers on both sides of the House, the less time there is for Back Benchers.

Joint Committee Proceedings (Okehampton Bypass)

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Along with two other hon. Members I have been placed with three noble Lords on the Joint Committee on the petition of general objection against the two Okehampton bypass compulsory purchase orders. That Committee is established under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945. My point of order concerns the way in which the proceedings of that Committee commenced yesterday and this morning.
I must explain why the Committee is considering a matter which was the subject of a public inquiry as long ago as 1979, which lasted no fewer than 96 days and which finally led to a report of more than 600 pages.
The Secretary of State announced his decision to confirm that report on 16 September 1983. Unfortunately, the road crosses land known as open space which would have to be compulsorily acquired. The failure to provide adequate compensatory land — we are talking about a small acreage—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a point of order for me. I do not think that I am responsible for anything that the hon. Member is now talking about.

Mr. Wiggin: I am seeking to give, as briefly as I can, the background to the substance of my point of order.
This procedure has allowed objectors, with help from the other place, to bring to the attention of the Joint Committee the adequacy or otherwise of the compensation under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. The Committee is quite reasonably required to resolve that matter. However, in practice what is happening is that the whole planning inquiry is being re-run upstairs in that Committee.
My complaint is that the petitioner has started to conduct the inquiry all over again, basing his right to do so on the acceptance of his petition by, in our case, the Chairman of Ways and Means.
I shall not trouble you—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a very important debate to follow this, and these are matters which do not concern me.

Mr. Wiggin: Although I accept the fact that it is right for this House, in conjunction with the other place, to be required to assist to protect the rights of individuals in relation to open space, I am raising a very serious point. If planning inquiries can be brought to this place and re-run from start to finish, the statutory procedures applying to the Government's purchase of land are threatened.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you can assist me in ensuring that this matter is dealt with by the Select Committee on Procedure in order to avoid that most undesirable happening. If you are so able to help me, I hope your advice will be that the Committee should adjourn until the Select Committee on Procedure has dealt with the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he was kind enough to give me notice of his point of order and I have been able to look into it in great detail.
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has asked me to take an action which is beyond my power. I have no power to direct a Committee to adjourn. Nor have I any power to refer a matter that is before one Committee to another Committee, so I cannot refer it to the Procedure Committee.
The Joint Committee is proceeding under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945, as amended, as the hon. Gentleman said, and under Standing Orders. Therefore, I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 15 MARCH

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. David Winnick

Mr. Gavin Strang

Mr. Neil Thorne

Town and Country Planning (Protection of Trees and Woodlands) (Amendment)

Mr. Roger Freeman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend section 62 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 so that trees with preservation orders which are removed from or destroyed in woodland must be replaced.
I shall not detain the House long, because an important debate is to follow. I thank hon. Members for displaying an interest in the Bill and remaining in the Chamber for a Bill about sensible, modest conservation. The Bill is not contentious, and has received wide support, not only from the different political parties but from the different interested groups involved. It involves no expenditure of public money, and corrects an anomaly which has remained for too long. The Bill removes an anomaly left in section 62 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Under that legislation, if a protected tree or trees in woodland is destroyed or cut down, the local authority has no power to order the replacement of the tree or trees. If a tree which is not in a woodland has a tree protection order attached to it and is destroyed, the local authority has that power. That is an anomaly.
In 1977, the Department of the Environment wrote to the Association of County Councils:
we accept for the moment that this appears to be a loophole which could well be closed.
I do not envisage the Bill as the final move to strengthen the law in relation to tree and woodland conservation. It is designed as a short-term stop-gap measure until the Government find time to introduce something more far-reaching. When the 1971 legislaton was debated, the Solicitor-General, now the Foreign Secretary, said of the provision for trees that there was
no question of this legislation being erected as a kind of Maginot Line … It should be regarded more as a launching pad."—[Official Report, 18 October 1971; Vol. 283, c. 509.]
By presenting the Bill, I am acknowledging what my right hon. and learned Friend said, since I am demonstrating and affirming that the present tree legislation is by no means sufficient enough to be called final. I seek to launch a modest, correcting Bill.
Since the war, between one third and one half of our ancient woodland has been destroyed. That is more than in the previous 400 years. In my county of Northamptonshire, about two thirds of ancient woodland has been lost in the same period, through intensive

forestry, agricultural development and residential development, much of which was no doubt necessary and valuable. In Kettering, the local authority recently had no power to prevent the destruction of protected trees in a woodland. The sense of hopelessness drew my attention to the anomaly in the Bill.
Those who support the Bill include the Association of District Councils, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers Union and the Tree Council. I am grateful to all those bodies for their support and advice.
Moreover, as the House will have noticed, county councils are becoming restive, are seeking and have sought private legislation to correct the anomaly. Already, we have the County of Kent Act 1981, section 79 of which has the same effect as this Bill. The Berkshire Bill [Lords], section 16 of which provides the text of my Bill, is at present before the House.
It is right that the House should correct the anomaly through a public Bill rather than permit a patchwork of corrections sought by individual county councils. I hope that the Government will soon take the initiative to take the concept of tree preservation orders a stage further. We should move from a negative concept of tree preservation to the much more dynamic and sensible concept of tree and woodland management. That is what we require and that is the next step in sensible conservation. I hope that the Government will take that initiative, because it is too big a task for a ten-minute Bill.
The Bill is modest and has support from all sides of the House. It has the support of the key parties involved in the industry and, I believe, the Government admit that a loophole exists. I urge the House to allow me to take the first and sensible step towards rectifying the problem.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roger Freeman, Sir John Fan, Mr. Kenneth Carlisle, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Simon Hughes and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (PROTECTION OF TREES AND WOODLANDS) (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Mr. Roger Freeman accordingly presented a Bill to extend section 62 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 so that trees with preservation orders which are removed from or destroyed in woodland must be replaced: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 March and to be printed. [Bill 94.]

Opposition Day

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

[FIRST PART]

Local Authorities (Capital Expenditure)

Mr. Speaker: As a large number of Members wish to speak in the debate, I hope that speeches will be reasonably brief so that all who wish to speak can be called.
I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point relates to Report stages of Bills generally.

Mr. Speaker: This is not a Report stage. It is an Opposition day. The Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill will come later.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I beg to move,
That this House, noting the existence of local authority accumulated reserves of capital receipts of about £5 billion and the Secretary of State for the Environment's acceptance that these reserves belong to the local authorities, noting the existence of housing and infrastructure need, noting the continuing need to create real jobs, but regretting the proposals of the Secretary of State to reduce the prescribed proportion of receipts which an authority may spend in any one year, asks the Secretary of State to review these proposals and restore the prescribed proportion of housing receipts to 40 per cent. and of other receipts to what they were prior to his statement of 18th December 1984.
Following the statement on 18 December, there was an emergency debate and it would be futile to repeat today the arguments advanced on that occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), whom we all wish a speedy return to good health.
In my two recent visits to the north-east and the north-west, the building employers and master builders put this new cut in local authority capital spending virtually at the top of the agenda for their discussions with me. They know that this new attack on local authorities will affect the private sector in a real sense, losing business and hence jobs. Small firms have started up on the strength of the crisis identified by the house conditions survey and large building firms have set up divisions to specialise in this work, knowing that it was heavily funded by capital receipts from the sale of land and houses. Building employers' organisations are now desprately trying to place apprentices whose firms have gone bust.
Last week, The Times reported that the National Consumer Council will have a paper before it next month claiming that 1 million homes are unfit to live in, and that one in 20 homes lack hot and cold running water and the same number have only outside toilets. On the same day, The Guardian reported:
the Government is to give £25 million to save three stately homes".
I am all in favour of saving the country's heritage, but for millions of our fellow citizens an unfit home is their only heritage.
It is all very well for the Tory manifesto to state:
Our goal is to make Britain the best housed nation in Europe
and for the Prime Minister to say:
Of course we must abolish the slums."—[Official Report, 5 November 1974; Vol. 880, c. 898.]
In reality, the building programme under this government is the worst since the war. In five full years of Conservative rule, new home starts averaged 180,000 per year compared with an average of 285,000 per year under the Labour Government. Indeed, in the best year under the Conservatives, 1983, housing starts totalled 214,000. That was 50,000 less than in 1978, which was the worst year under the last Labour Government. That is the sort of record we must consider today.
Builders throughout the country are expressing concern lest, if the rate of new build stays low and the improvement programme is cut back, they will be forced in the next decade to return to massive programmes based on system or non-traditional methods. They do not want to do that. Neither do the Opposition. Nor should the Government.
I suspect that this afternoon we shall hear from the Treasury Bench the familiar speech full of local authority financial jargon. We shall be told, and I accept, that unfit housing did not start in 1979. We shall also hear about the improvement programme increases of the last couple of years.
When we are building 100,000 fewer homes a year and when we are clearing slums at only one third of the rate of the last Labour Government, the very minimum required to stand still is an increase in the improvement programme. Thus, the Government have nothing to boast about.
We have some words of the Prime Minister to send us on our way in this debate. Speaking of local authorities selling assets of buildings and land, she said that that would
bring a substantial profit to local authorities which they could use to build special units for old people, for which there is a serious need." — [Official Report, 5 November 1974; Vol. 880, c. 897.]
The need is no less now than it was when the right hon. Lady uttered those words at this Dispatch Box in 1974, when she was shadow Secretary of State for the Environment. Why, we are entitled to ask, has the building programme for the elderly halved, from 27,000 a year in 1980 to 14,000 in 1983?
I thought that I could safely leave it to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)—who, unfortunately, is not in his place — to argue a cogent case on behalf of himself and his 74 right hon. and hon. Friends who signed a motion similar to that before the House today when it was an early-day motion and we were in office. Indeed, The Guardian printed most of those 74 names and described it as "another Tory rebellion."
My hon. Friends will put a powerful case on behalf of their constituents, builders and local authorities. I have with me a sheaf of letters from councils throughout the country, Tory and Labour-controlled, identifying the crisis that has been caused by the further cut. However, the case that will not be put in this debate is that affecting adversely all our constituents and local authorities. Treasury and Department of the Environment Ministers will not make that case clear. It is an omission that I intend to rectify.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in a recent parliamentary answer to me, the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to meet the group of


eight representing the construction industry? That was the first time that a Chancellor had refused to meet the representatives of the construction industry. Indeed, during the period of the last Labour Government, those representatives were able to see even the Prime Minister. The attitude of the Chancellor is typical of the way in which the Treasury and the Government are treating the construction industry.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's local authorities, Blaby and Harborough district councils, have between them 1,843 homes in the private sector either unfit or lacking basic amenities, compared with 22 in the public sector. No wonder Blaby district council says that it
does not require major urgent capital allocation, with the possible exception of house improvement in the private sector.
Harborough district council says that because of the unlimited spend provision available in the last couple of years, it has
increased the proportion of the housing capital programme over the past three years… on improvements … from 12 per cent … to 40 per cent.
It adds:
It has been recognised that the stop-start policy of the last three years has caused unfairness to applicants, has wasted administrative work and has created public confusion regarding the grants available.
In that authority, between 1978 and 1984, there was an increase of 79 per cent. in the number of applications for homes for elderly people. That has happened in the Chancellor's own backyard.
Dover district council, the local authority of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has 1,984 private sector homes either unfit or fit but lacking basic amenities — I have never understood how a home with an outside toilet or without hot and cold running water could be classed as fit — compared with 40 in the public sector. The district council says:
The housing shortage continues … The unprecedented number of grant enquiries and applications during 1983–84 caused considerable administrative and staffing problems … However, the commitment, both legal and moral, that had been entered into before the restrictions were imposed and the 90 per cent. grant level reverted to 75 per cent., will still result in a high level of expenditure during 1984–85 and, to a lesser extent, in 1985–86. The frequent policy changes over the last few years have made the efficient operation of the grant scheme very difficult and has not contributed to value for money.
The local authority of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury depends on capital receipts for one third of the resources necessary to meet its programme.
The constituency of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is in Croydon. Of course, the constituency of Mr. Speaker is also in Croydon, but I would not dream of associating him with current Treasury policy. In Croydon, 5,350 homes in the private sector are unfit or lack basic amenities, compared with 610 in the public sector. In the local authority of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on census night there were over 2,000 homes with no inside toilet. The council says that it makes major use of capital receipts to supplement its housing investment programme allocation. In regard to the switch of funds to cover renovation grants it says:
The number of applications received substantially exceeded all expectations and in the financial year 1983–84 some 4,333 grants were approved — over five times the number in the previous year.
The financial consequences of that very large moral commitment to make grants has had a major impact on the

council's ability to pursue its longer-term housing strategy and, in the absence of additional resources for 1985–86, will continue to prejudice the council's housing priorities. These are all Tory authorities which are talking about a moral commitment on improvement grants.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury has a rather more leafy constituency, in the north Hertfordshire district council area, but it is not immune. In the private sector there are 840 homes unfit or lacking basic amenities, compared with 30 in the public sector. The council is dependent on capital receipts for 50 per cent. of its small programme. It says that it has to make use of available housing capital receipts to maintain its capital programme at a realistic level.
I shall not spend too much time on the Minister of State, Treasury, because he is unique in having a Labour-controlled local authority in the London borough of Hounslow. The view of that authority would not reinforce the case I am making about what Treasury authorities are saying. In Hounslow, 7,056 homes in the private sector are unfit or lack basic amenities compared with 2,236 in the public sector. The council relies on capital receipts for 50 per cent. of its housing investment programme.
The Secretary of State for the Environment represents part of the London borough of Redbridge. By now he must be sick of having the activities of his council quoted to him. In that local authority area, 4,529 homes in the private sector are unfit or lack basic amenities, compared with 398 in the public sector. His authority is also unique in that it has England's highest proportion of prefabricated concrete houses in the private sector, so it is under severe pressure to try to put into operation the legislation on housing defects.
I rest my case by quoting Councillor Salter, the Tory, leader of the council; in the Ilford Recorder on 31 January he was quoted as saying:
We may find it difficult to carry out our legal duties simply because we are being prevented from spending our own money. The Government have ignored the effect their instructions will have on the most vulnerable sections of the community. For example, by reducing the amount of money for improvement grants, handicapped people will suffer. Many young people will have to put off buying their first home because we will be unable to provide them with a mortgage. I have no hesitation in laying the blame for the savage cuts, and their consequences, fairly and squarely at the door of the Government who have ordered them.
In regard to the Government cut in money for housing, that newspaper article says:
It will hit the weakest sector of the Redbridge community … the old, the handicapped, the poor and the young.
These are the constituents of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I cannot rest my case without referring to Eastbourne. That authority is not Tory-controlled, nor is it Labour-controlled. The Liberals have control of Eastbourne In Eastbourne, there are 2,403 homes in the private sector that are unfit or lack basic amenities, compared with only two in the public sector. The mix of people and properties has become so bad in Eastbourne— I shall not say that this has happened under Liberal control — that the council says that it could be argued that building houses for families with children is building for a special need. That is because the mismatch of people to properties, including family-sized properties, is so bad. It is reported that the council is due to abandon schemes—I have only a press report on this — for low-cost home ownership


because of the proposed changes to the capital receipt rules. That is the state of affairs in the backyard of the Minister for Housing and Construction.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), cannot escape either. The London borough of Ealing has 11,325 private sector homes that are unfit or lacking basic amenities, compared with 1,150 in the public sector.
I intended to refer to the London borough of Barnet, which is the authority in the Prime Minister's constituency. The information that I have quoted has come from the Library. I discovered by accident that it is the only place in the country, save for Marsham street, where all local authority investment strategy reports are lodged. The local authorities cannot read one another's reports, but they are all public documents and we can go through them. When I began to try to discover the number of unfit houses in Barnet, I found that all the boxes which should have contained figures had crosses in them instead. This is the Prime Minister's local authority, and surely this is taking flunkeyism rather too far. If those responsible thought that they were filling in a ballot paper, they were sadly mistaken. The House is entitled to know the number of unfit dwellings in Barnet. I hope that the state of affairs to which I have referred will be rectified speedily.
It is clear from the statement made by the London borough of Barnet that it is dependent on capital receipts for no less than 50 per cent. of its spending on its housing programme, including improvement grants and new build. The borough refers to
the extensive use of capital receipts to augment a HIP allocation".
It spent £12·5 million and its investment allocation from the Government was only £6·5 million, which was about 50 per cent. of the total spend. It then refers to improvement grants and states:
it will be several years before the current 'would-be' applicants will receive grants, and many of them will be disappointed not to receive their grants sooner. Criticism has already been made of the delays and the failure to meet these raised expectations.
I wonder whether that has been brought home to the local Member or to the other Members in the area. I do not know how the criticism has been expressed.
I appreciate that this is a short debate and that it would be an abuse of my privilege in opening it for the Opposition to speak for too long. I have presented a thumbnail sketch of the constituencies and local authorities of the decision makers who propose to bring the order to reduce capital receipts before the House. I have referred to the constituencies and local authorities of Treasury Ministers and Ministers of the Department of the Environment who are concerned with housing. I have set out the state of their own backyards. There is massive unmet need for improvement in the private sector. They are ignoring that need and consequently failing to meet it by proposing to impose further cuts in capital receipts.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what he says does not even include the enormous demand in each of the boroughs and districts that he has mentioned from people who wish to move there but who are told that there is no chance at all because the lists are blocked and the opportunities are blocked? The local councils do not have the money to

create or rehabilitate any more homes for the people who would like to go to those areas but cannot do so because of the same policies?

Mr. Rooker: Yes. I have read the documents of local authorities that come within the constituencies of the members of the Government who will be responsible for reducing capital receipts. They make fascinating reading; I suggest that right hon. and hon. Members trawl through them.
Birmingham is the largest housing authority in England and the House will know that I have the honour to represent part of the city. There are 36,190 private homes in Birmingham that are unfit or lacking in basic amenities. There are 25,670 public sector homes in the same category. As a result of the cuts in the use of capital receipts, Birmingham will lose £40 million in 1985–86. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent the city in this place have been told by Birmingham's treasurer that this will mean no new building for the elderly and the disabled. It will prevent structural repairs from being undertaken to dangerous high-rise blocks. It will mean that there will be no funds for improvement grants, including those which are a priority for the disabled and the chronically sick. There will be no capital work within the education service and no action will be taken to replace toilet blocks that are still in school yards. Essential fire precaution work in homes for the elderly will be dropped. The clearance and recycling of derelict sites will stop as well. Those six consequences will be the direct result of the loss to Birmingham of £40 million.
In fact, the list is endless. The voluntary sector throughout the country will be stopped from doing its work. Slum clearance programmes will stop and build-for-sale will be stopped. The Institute of Housing undertook a survey of a list of local authorities and the various statements that have been made following the statement make illuminating reading. I hope that one of my hon. Friends will be able to refer to them in detail, because they represent a catalogue of disaster. This is the result of stopping local authorities spending their own money.

Mr. John Powley: The hon. Gentleman has catalogued his views. Does he accept that cuts or reductions in local authority capital expenditure are nothing new and have taken place under Conservative and Labour Governments in recent years? Does he recall the words of the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer on 22 July 1976, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), when he referred to reductions in public expenditure? Talking about housing, he said:
It is therefore necessary to reintroduce control over this programme and to limit the rate of approvals so that overspending is avoided."—[Official Report, 22 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 2015.]
Did the hon. Gentleman make the same remarks then that he is making now?

Mr. Rooker: The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. I presume that the hon. Gentleman is not one of the 74 Conservative Members who have signed the motion to which I referred about a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes ago.

Mr. Jack Straw: He is one of the 74.

Mr. Rooker: He cannot be. If he is, I presume that he will seek to intervene in my speech to clarify the position. He has not done so, so it is clear that he is not one of the 74.

Mr. Powley: rose—

Mr. Rooker: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
Since 1979, there has been a 69 per cent. cut in housing provision. I have detailed the position in 1984–85 coming on to 1985–86 for Tory authorities and Birmingham. I have explained that on average we are building 100,000 homes fewer each year than the number built under the previous Labour Government, notwithstanding the cuts to which the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) has referred. We are clearing slums at only a third of the rate which was achieved under the last Labour Government. We are building up a massive crisis for the future. Does the hon. Gentleman still want to intervene? It appears that he does not.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does my hon. Friend recall that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) was the Minister for Housing and Construcion he was always pressing local authorities to spend more? His complaint was that they were not spending the moneys that were being made available to them. It cannot be said that during that period the Labour Administration did not fulfil all their undertakings to the electorate on housing finance support.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. The situation has changed, because since 1980 there has been a new form of funding. The Prime Minister told us, as I said earlier, that we should use the money from capital receipts—she called it the profits — to re-invest. She spoke of re-investing in special housing units for the elderly. As I have explained, even that programme under this Government has been cut by half since 1980. The hon. Member for Norwich, South cannot have it both ways. He cannot keep harping back to the previous Labour Government when the record since 1980 is getting worse.
The Government have admitted that they do not know how the capital receipts have been used. That fact has been given in an answer to a parliamentary question. I cite the one on 9 November at column 23 in Hansard. The Government further admit that they have no information on the level of unspent receipts. I cite column 504 of 28 November 1984. They do not know how the capital receipts are being used or the level of the unspent receipts. What do they know that causes them to bring forward these further cuts? We have the Prime Minister's pledge which she gave in the House to abolish the slums and to use the profits from sales for building. The Government know that, due to their low building programme overall — I am not arguing about tenure — low clearance rates and the now declining improvement programme, the nation has a crisis on its hands. We can make a start today to stop that.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
notes the existence of local authority accumulated reserves of capital receipts of about £5 billion and the Secretary of State for the Environment's acceptance that these reserves belong to the local authorities; further notes that housing and infrastructure

needs are reflected in the gross provision of over £4 billion for local authority capital spending in 1985–86; and welcomes the Government's determination to keep next year's local authority capital expenditure within the total provided in the Autumn Statement and approved by this House on 6th December 1984.
Essentially this debate is about housing and jobs but it is also about public expenditure and the Government' s determination to keep spending next year within the limits provided for in the autumn statement and approved by the House on 6 December. In that statement, the Government provided for gross capital spending by local authorities in England of just over £4 billion.
The Government's policies on local authority capital expenditure strike a necessary balance between the needs of local authorities and what the nation can afford. Those policies are part of a wider strategy to reduce inflation and to sustain economic growth. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) laughs about sustaining economic growth and keeping down inflation but an inflation rate of 5 per cent. is the lowest we have had for 16 years and we now have the fourth year of economic growth at 3 per cent. It is the longest period of sustained recovery since the war. The numbers in work increased by 342,000 in the year ending September 1984, and last year total public and private capital investment is estimated at £55 billion—an all-time record — and that record is likely to be exceeded this year.

Mr. Straw: With that catalogue of economic success, which only the Minister and his friends in the Cabinet recognise but which is completely unrecognisable by the rest of the country, will the Minister say why Britain's unemployment record is now the worst of all the major industrialised countries when in 1979 it was at average? The Government's real international record is that they have raised unemployment to record levels this century.

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman's facts are wrong. He knows that over the past year the rate of increase in unemployment in most EEC countries has been higher than that in the United Kingdom.
An essential part of our strategy is to achieve low inflation and the basis of economic growth is to control the level of public expenditure and borrowing, including that of local authorities. For a time, at any rate, those were the policies of the Labour party. It is true that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was never a member of the Administration in which his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) served as Chancellor, but it was the then Chancellor who wrote to the managing director of the International Monetary Fund in these terms — [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen do not like this, but they will be reminded of it. On 15 December 1976, the then Chancellor writing on the subject of today's debate—I am entitled to quote it—said:
The Government's intention in the years ahead is to reduce the share of resources taken by public expenditure. It is also part of this strategy to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement so as to establish monetary conditions which will help the growth of output and the control of inflation.

Mr. David Winnick: Despite the letter that the Minister has just quoted, not once during the Labour Government's period of office did the number of new public sector starts fall below 100,000. As a result of the cuts that will take place in the next financial year, the number of starts will be about 20,000. Will the Minister bear in mind that the Rosehill estate in my constituency


desperately needs to be modernised? It was stated that modernisation work would start in 1985–86. I have been informed by the council that as a result of the Secretary of State's statement no work will start until the next financial year and that even then it is likely that only a few dwellings will be modernised in 1986–87. Does the Minister recognise that as a result of these policies thousands of my constituents and hundreds of thousands of other people elsewhere will be denied necessary improvements to their council dwellings, and that hardly any new dwellings will be built?

Mr. Gow: It was a mistake for me to give way to the hon. Gentleman but I nevertheless remind him that there were 198,000 completions in 1984 and that the 150,000 private sector completions last year was the highest figure for eight years.
I should like to explain to the House why it was necessary for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to announce on 18 December that the prescribed proportion of housing receipts would be reduced for the coming financial year from 40 to 20 per cent. As the House will be aware—this has been the practice since 1981—a cash limit is set each year for local authority capital spending. It is true that there was an underspend on capital account in 1981–82 and 1982–83 but that underspend of £633 million in the first year and £870 million in the second was more than offset by a massive overspend on current account.
In 1983–84, the local authority cash limit was exceeded by £368 million. My right hon. Friend has explained that there is certain to be another overspend this year. It could be as high as £650 million. If no corrective action were taken, there would be an even larger overspend next year — possibly by as much as £1 billion. Faced with the known overspend last year, the substantially larger overspend this year, and the certainty of an even greater overspend next year, no responsible Government, having set a cash limit, could fail to take steps to secure compliance with their policy.
When the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 came into force on 1 April 1981, it was always envisaged that the prescribed proportion arising from the sale of council houses might need to be reduced to control the rate of spending of the massive receipts generated by a policy that was becoming increasingly popular. Indeed, the 1980 Act provided specifically for the prescribed proportion to be reduced. That was precisely the step that we took with effect from 1 April last year, when the prescribed proportion for council house sales was reduced from 50 to 40 per cent.

Mr. John Heddle: If my hon. Friend fears the possibility of an overspend of £1,000 million in 1985–86, what assurance can he give the House, if it subsequently approves the order, that the prescribed proportion will not be reduced next year from 20 to, say, 10 per cent.?

Mr. Gow: As my hon. Friend knows, the prescribed proportion is reviewed each year in the autumn. I have just been explaining to the House that, with effect from 1 April last year, we reduced the prescribed proportion from 50 to 40 per cent., and the proposals that will be laid before the House in the form of an order next week will deal with the

prescribed proportion for the coming financial year. As I have already said to the House, we shall, of course, keep the prescribed proportion under review.
There is one other point that I wish to make to my hon. Friend. Both I and my right hon. Friend have said from the Dispatch Box that the present system of controlling local authority capital expenditure is the reverse of perfect. We are seeking better ways of controlling local authority capital spending. For that purpose my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Treasury and the local authority associations are currently engaged in discussions. I can tell my hon. Friend that I hope and believe that we will be able to find a more satisfactory way.

Mr. Allan Roberts: rose—

Mr. Gow: We have been asked to make short speeches, and I understand that the debate must finish at seven o'clock. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to speak later in the debate and I will then have an opportunity to reply to the points that are raised. I ought to get on because some of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate.
At the start of the next financial year, accumulated receipts are expected to amount to some £5 billion. This reflects the outstanding success of our right-to-buy policy, a policy to which the hon. Member for Perry Barr and Deng Xiaoping have become notable and welcome converts. I recognise that the whole of the Labour party does not share the view of the hon. Member for Perry Barr.
I remind the House that the following sentence appeared in the manifesto upon which the Labour party fought, and lost, the last election. Some Labour Members still believe in the policy. The manifesto said:
Labour will end enforced council house sales, empower public landlords to re-purchase homes sold under the Tories on first resale and provide that future agreed sales will be at market value.
Let me say what that means in plain English. I am talking about the sale of council houses, which happens to be the subject of today's discussion.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gow: I have told the hon. Gentleman that I will not give way.

Mr. Roberts: Frightened?

Mr. Gow: Frightened of the hon. Gentleman? Of course I am not.

Mr. Roberts: Then give way.

Mr. Gow: The reason that I am not giving way is that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who are present in much greater strength than Labour Members, want to make a contribution to the debate.
Put in plain English, the policy of the Labour party means that Labour would end the right to buy, re-municipalise if the present owner wishes to sell and scrap the general consents available to local authorities to sell at a discount even though throughout the period of the last Labour Government local authorities were allowed to sell to sitting tenants with a discount of 30 per cent.
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Perry Barr so that he may clarify the policy of his party about the sale of council houses.

Mr. Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gow: No.
Our proposal to reduce the prescribed proportion from 40 to 20 per cent. does not mean that local authorities are being deprived of their capital receipts. On the contrary, they will retain those receipts. We are controlling, as we always have done, the rate at which those receipts may be spent.
Next year's housing investment programme allocations amount to £1·6 billion. To that figure local authorities will be able to add 20 per cent. of accumulated housing receipts and 30 per cent. of other receipts. In addition, of course, local authorities will be able to use 20 per cent. of housing receipts arising in 1985–86 and 30 per cent. of non-housing receipts.
Wider opportunity for home ownership is one of the key elements of our housing strategy. Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister arrived in Downing street, more than 800,000 local authority, new town and housing association homes have been sold, almost all to sitting tenants, and some 70,000 homes have been sold under low-cost home ownership schemes, including building and improving for sale, homesteading, shared ownership and building under licence. Those were matters to which the hon. Member for Perry Barr referred in his speech.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gow: I have already said that I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. When we say something on this side of the House, we mean it.
Over and above those 70,000 homes, 5,000 acres of land have been sold by local authorities and new towns—sufficient land for about 45,000 homes. The House will agree that that is a massive achievement.
Following my right hon. Friend's statement on 18 December 1984, many local authorities have expressed concern that the reduction in the prescribed proportion may make it difficult to promote low-cost home ownership. Indeed, that was one of the points to which the hon. Member for Perry Barr referred in his speech. Some of my hon. Friends have also made representations about this matter. We have decided, therefore, that it is right to make a special exemption when a local authority incurs capital expenditure on a low-cost home ownership scheme and then disposes of the home or land immediately.
I am glad to be able to tell the House, and particularly those of my hon. Friends who have made representations, that the prescribed proportion will remain at 100 per cent. in the following circumstances: first, where an authority buys property for resale, for example, on shared ownership terms; secondly, when it builds for sale; and thirdly, when it arranges for a developer to build for sale under licence on land which it owns.

Mr. Rooker: It could not do anything else.

Mr. Gow: I hope that this news will be welcome to the Labour party because of its professed commitment to allowing the least well-off to get their feet on the first rung of the home ownership ladder. Despite the proposed reduction in the prescribed proportion for most sales, local authorities will still have a real incentive to generate higher capital receipts in 1985–86.
I deal next with the wider issue of housing capital expenditure and spending on repairs and maintenance.

Mr. Rooker: Given the agreement of the Treasury, how much new money might be available? Can the Minister put a figure on it? Is it possible to make an estimate?

Mr. Gow: I think that the consequence that the hon. Member for Perry Barr and certainly some of my hon. Friends feared was that, if the prescribed proportion for those categories had indeed been reduced from 100 per cent., as suggested originally by my right hon. Friend, those excellent schemes might have dried up altogether. The hon. Member for Perry Barr is confirming the fears of my hon. Friends. We have been able to respond to the perfectly legitimate anxieties that were expressed by some of my hon. Friends. The answer I have given is that there will be no cost because the schemes might have dried up. It is because we accept the validity of the arguments presented to the Government that we have decided that it would be right in these circumstances to make an exception.
Gross housing provision next year — [Interruption.] What I have said to the House is that we have revised the original proposals to make a special exemption so that 100 per cent. of the prescribed proportion will continue to apply. Gross housing provision next year is £3,051 million, compared with £3,274 million in the current year. In each of the past two years, spending by local authorities on repairs and maintenance out of current account has exceeded £1 billion. In addition to that £1 billion, local authorities have spent on capital account a further £1 billion in each of the past two years on repairs and improvements to their housing stock.
With regard to the private sector, the House will remember that in the last year in which the Labour party was in power spending on improvement grants was £90 million, compared with £900 million in the last financial year, and an estimated £750 million in the current financial year.
Most repairs and improvements in the private sector are, of course, not financed through grants at all. We estimate that in the year ended 31 March 1984, about £8 billion was spent on repair and improvement of existing houses, financed from savings or from private sector borrowing.
When we made our housing investment allocations for the coming financial year, we took account of the severe problems that some authorities have with their older estates and with their prefabricated reinforced concrete houses. For the first time we included a special factor in the generalised needs index to take particular account of that type of dwelling. We are discussing with the local authorities more effective methods of establishing the condition of their housing stock.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gow: No.
I understand that the reduction in the prescribed proportion is a tough measure, but I say to the House—and to my hon. Friends in particular — that keeping public spending within the limits decided by the Government and approved by this House is a tough business. Other Governments, including a Labour one, have set out on the road that they knew was necessary if we were to restore honest money and sound finance. What marks out this Government from their predecessors is that where they lost their nerve we shall keep ours, and where others failed we have the determination to succeed.

Miss Betty Boothroyd: By its very nature, the debate, as it progresses, will no doubt


develop a local flavour. I intend to put into that flavour and place on record the situation that is experienced by my local authority and by very many families who live within that area.
I do not want to go into detailed figures, but I must place on record that in the year 1985–86 my local authority, Sandwell, was planning on using about £10·5 million from council house sales to supplement the housing investment programme. But by his sweeping statement the Secretary of State is now withholding about £4 million of the council's own money which had previously been planned for housing purposes and to help those in need of a home.
My council is not in the habit of sending resolutions to Ministers, but it was driven to respond to the Secretary of State's December announcement with an emergency resolution, couched in the strongest possible terms, protesting at the effect it will have on Sandwell's housing programme. I support that protest.
The Minister, in opening his speech today, was right about one thing. He said that the debate was about public expenditure. It is. This latest savage exercise in voodoo economics is dictated by inflexible Treasury cash limits which have been drawn up with obsessive concern for the amount involved rather than for the quality of its use or the public need—and need there certainly is in many urban areas such as my own.
The housing authority in Sandwell has 6,000 families on the waiting list for council accommodation. In addition, an average of 130 new cases of homelessness per month are reported. Yet for the first time in our history in Black Country towns we are unable to make any new starts on house building. I thought that the Minister was about to leave. I hope that he will not leave until I am able to make this point to him.
A couple of weeks ago, when I asked the Minister what words of comfort he had for the people on waiting lists, he said that council properties which had remained empty for 12 months or more should be let. There are 76 properties in that category where structural work is now taking place. Perhaps the Minister can advise us how to fit 6,000 families into 76 houses. If the Minister will remain a little longer, I will tell him that, because of his Government's restrictions, Sandwell has not been able to continue to build sheltered housing for the elderly. That has affected the movement of families from the housing list who could have moved into properties vacated by elderly tenants.
In the private sector, we have 21,000 houses in urgent need of repair. About a third of them are unfit and need to be demolished. Yet Sandwell is not allowed the resources to declare any new housing action areas. Instead, there is cancellation or postponement of plans, many of which have been promised to tenants and are in current programmes. We are lagging far behind any reasonable assessment of need.
Total expenditure on housing for my borough has now been cut back to £17 million for 1985–86. We have actually moved backwards. £17 million was the housing budget in 1979, when the Government came to power with the manifesto boast of "Helping the Family". Not many families in my area have had housing help since the Government came into office.
Today my local authority needs £38 million to carry out its housing investment programme, but we are permitted to spend only half of what is required. In spite of inflation, in spite of natural growth, and in spite of increased demand and need, the clock has been put back six years for the people of Sandwell. We are now back to the level of 1979 when the Government came into office.
The draconian cuts under which people are having to suffer fly in the face of the words of a Government who came to office with the proclaimed falsehood of making us a better housed nation. That just was not true.
The Minister will have received representations from the leader of Sandwell council in the past few days about the costly legacy that is of additional and urgent concern to us. I refer to the findings of a survey carried out in Wednesbury, in my constituency, showing that 350 houses are at risk from the collapse of old limestone workings some 500 ft below ground.
I am sure that the Minister will join me in expressing sympathy for the families concerned, who are naturally upset and very worried about their plight. Their personal safety is not in danger, but there is understandable anxiety about the situation in which they find themselves, living as they do above mines long ago abandoned and now collapsing. I am seeking the Minister's assurance today that he will not ignore the plight of those families and that he will regard the circumstances in that area as exceptional, and be generous in his approach to it. I have no estimates of the work required for housing needs there, but, of 350 houses, about one third are owner-occupied and awards for blight or any other compensation must come by way of special grant from the Minister's Department. I hope that the Minister agrees and will say so today.
For families in council accommodation, expenditure on housing or rehousing must also be met by grant aid. Having savaged housing expenditure and imposed stringent borrowing controls on the local authority, to the extent of reducing spending on housing and taking it back to the levels of 1979, the Minister cannot ignore the plight of families living above Cow Pasture mine, in Wednesbury. Sandwell's limited resources cannot possibly be stretched to deal with the emergency. I hope that the Minister will give some guarantees and assure the council and local residents that the finance will be forthcoming.

Mr. John Heddle: I am sure every hon. Member will agree that 90 per cent. of the constituency cases that are brought to our advisory bureaux or which come in our post concern housing and the plight of the homeless. Is it not therefore extraordinary that, at this relatively early hour in the parliamentary day, there are present only four hon. Members from the official Opposition, just one Social Democratic Member and no Liberal Members?

Mr. Peter Pike: The hon. Gentleman cannot count.

Mr. Heddle: I am, of course, excluding the Front Benches.
I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Building Societies Association. It is not a pecuniary interest, but an honorary one, but one that I feel I ought to declare in view


of what I have to say. I applaud the sentiments that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing expressed, and I applaud also the Government's dedication to restricting the country's overdraft — the public sector borrowing requirement. High borrowing means higher inflation, which means high interest rates, which means more distress for industry and commerce and every borrower, including home owners.
I must confess that I find an element of contradiction — although I am not an economist, far less an accountant—in the Government amendment. However, I am prepared to listen to both sides of the argument and not to be strangled by the collar of mongrel political dogma. There is an answer to the problem. Local government finance is beset with a myriad of contradictions and mysteries resulting from what I understand is called annuality, which means that in any 12 months a sum of money still in the council's bank account must be spent before the end of that year, otherwise the council will not get more in the next year. That is not how industry and commerce runs its affairs, or how right hon. and hon. Members run their domestic affairs. That is why I applaud the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made in October at Brighton, when he said that he was prepared to examine local government finance, not simply the rating system. If we can find a solution to that problem, those which we are debating today will not arise.
I am definitely a "don't know" and shall listen carefully to both sides of the argument and cast my vote accordingly. However, I shall not cast my vote with the Opposition, because nothing that they have said has a vestige of originality. They say that we should spend more on home improvements and build more council houses, not overnight, but in the lifetime of a Parliament or two. They believe that that will resolve the crisis, but it is nonsense. Building more council houses has not reduced waiting lists. The nation's housing crisis will be resolved only if greater use is made of our existing housing stock and if more local authorities take the trouble to examine the tenants' charter enshrined in the Housing Act 1980.
If more single people on council house waiting lists took the trouble to find the many elderly people who live in three-bedroomed council houses and who would dearly love the company and rent of such people, and if local authorities took the trouble to spell out the rights which the Government have given to every tenant, there would not be such a housing crisis.
I am not attracted by the crocodile tears of Opposition Members who talk of the reduction in money spent on home improvements in the past two Parliaments. Six short years ago, £90 million was spent on home improvement grants. How much was contributed by the ratepayer and the taxpayer in the last financial year? Twice as much? Five times as much? The answer is 10 times as much—£900 million — and yet Opposition Members bleat that not enough is being spent. Of course, enough can never be spent on the nation's housing stock. It is our heritage. Nevertheless, we must find a means of investing the money which ratepayers and taxpayers provide to the maximum public effect.

Mr. Pike: The announcement of £900 million for improvement grants was made shortly before the 1983 general election. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the

bonanza and blank cheque approach was an attempt to persuade people to vote Conservative at that general election?

Mr. Heddle: I am tempted not to reply to that rather banal intervention, but I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman, who obviously has the statistics at his fingertips, that, two years after that historic general election victory, £700 million is to be spent on home improvements this year.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing reminded us that there was an overspend of £368 million in 1983–84 and a £650 million overspend in 1984–85. Unless steps are taken under the order that we are to debate on another occasion, there is a possibility of the overspend being as much as £1 billion. I appreciate the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister gave to my intervention, and I shall take it into account when considering which way to vote. It is nonsense to hear that councils are overspending to the tune of £650 million and for them at the same time to be pleading poverty. It is also nonsense that there is a possibility of an overspend of £1 billion next year when there is no money to satisfy improvement grant applications this year, and when applicants might have to wait three years before their applications are considered.
It is nonsense, in the overall context, that £5,000 million of capital receipts are owned by local authorities, are invested by local authorities and are not being properly used by local authorities. Therefore, I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister that there has to be an argument for restraining the amount that local authorities can spend in any one year. I can see the Logic of restricting capital receipts from 40 to 20 per cent. The other side of the argument is that all our constituents want to own their own homes and to borrow or obtain grants from the local authority, but, because of the way that local authorities' finances are ordered, they are not able to do so.
I put to the House what I believe is a practical and sensible solution to this problem. In addition to that £5,000 million, some £4,000 million is locked up in mortgages granted by local authorities to former tenants of theirs who have bought their houses either voluntarily or under the right-to-buy procedure. Some £2,300 million of that £4 billion was granted by way of mortgages for 15, 20 or 2.5 years to former tenants who have now exercised their right to buy. I do not believe that local authorities are in the building society business. It is not their duty, as guardians of the ratepayers' money and stewards of the rate support grant system, to lock the taxpayers' and ratepayers' money up for such a long time. If they are to sell their assets, they have a duty to use those assets to the maximum benefit of the community which they are elected to serve. If they sell council houses, it is their duty to reinvest the proceeds of that sale in providing more and better housing for more people by conversion, improvement for sale, low-cost home ownership or home improvement.
Therefore, I submit to my hon. Friend the Minister that the solution to this accounting problem is to impose a duty on all local authorities to sell their mortgage books to building societies, thus releasing money which would otherwise be locked up for almost a generation, and enabling it to be used by them to the advantage of the present generation. The benefit to the local authority would be an immediate cash receipt—whether 100 per


cent., 50 per cent. or whatever may be the subject of the basis of negotiation between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the local authority associations.
The benefit to the borrowers will be rather more considerable. They will have the benefit of the flexibility that a building society mortgage provides, and that will enable them to obtain a further mortgage when they sell the house and trade-up to buy another one. It would also mean that, in certain circumstances, they would be able to borrow from a building society at a lower rate of interest. At a time of temporary, I hope, but uncomfortably high rates of interest, they might receive a much more sympathetic and compassionate hearing from the local building society manager over their temporary cash flow problems than they would from a bureaucratic and possibly anonymous local authority.
The critics of my scheme, like my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, tell me that it would have a distorting effect on the money supply or the PSBR. I tabled a question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point. I asked:
what the effect would be on (a) the money supply and (b) the public sector borrowing requirement if the funds currently lent on first mortgages by local authorities were transferred with the borrowers' consent to building societies or other approved financial institutions in the following sums in each respect (i) £1 billion, (ii) £2 billion, (iii) £3 billion and (iv) £4 billion".
He replied:
Providing other expenditure does not increase, then transferring local authority mortgages to the building societies or other approved financial institutions would reduce the public sector's borrowing requirement. The effect on the money supply would depend on the response of those who took on the mortgages, but it is likely that monetary conditions in the economy would be very little changed. If public expenditure did increase in line with the transfer of mortgages, then the PSBR would revert to its original level, but because monetary conditions had been largely unaffected by the initial fall in the PSBR this increase would imply some loosening of financial conditions, and would thus be inflationary unless offset by higher interest rates."—[Official Report, 19 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 433–34.]
The sting is in the tail of my right hon. Friend's answer. As I have already said, I am neither an economist nor an accountant, and therefore I am stung by the more practical, commonsense and commercial approach that lies between the lines of my right hon. Friend's answer to my rather simple and basic question.
The political reality is that the purchase of one's home is the largest, most significant and important step that each and every one of our constituents can take in his lifetime. It is a decision into which none of them enters lightly or wantonly, but it is a decision which, once entered into, brings to all our people private ownership, independence, stature and a feeling of independence in the community. Some 800,000 have taken that step, and many more could and would, but, sadly, there are some local authorities which are not entirely in tune with the aims, aspirations and ambitions of our constituents. They are politically motivated and will wish to frustrate those aims and ambitions, and now will use the excuse of being able to reinvest only 20 per cent. of capital receipts in any one year from so doing.
If the motion were carried tonight, the political reality would be that the number of council house sales would fall and a number of people who elected us in 1979 and 1983 on the promise of extending home ownership could be

frustrated by forces over which the House has no direct control. The motion, if carried, would, I fear, provide those local authorities with a cast-iron excuse to procrastinate and frustrate the freedom of those council tenants, and would perpetuate divisions in every town and city.

Mr. John Cartwright: I am sure that the House will watch with interest to see how the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) resolves his internal conflict. As he has ruled out the prospect of voting for the Opposition, he does not have many options left when it comes to deciding how he will cast his vote. I speak on behalf of the Liberal party and the SDP. We have no such inhibitions. We shall be voting solidly for the motion tabled by the official Opposition because we are concerned about the impact of the Government's most recent proposed cut in local authority capital spending.
First, this will have an impact on the construction industry. On that point, I quote the Building Employers Confederation, an organisation whose members have long been noted for their loyalty to the Tory party. It says that what the Government are proposing could mean a 28 per cent. cut in the local authority capital spending in England in 1985–86. It is in no doubt what that would mean. It says:
Such a massive reduction in workload would cause grave problems for the construction industry and could lead to the loss of more than 150,000 jobs.
Such an impact would come on top of the already far from buoyant state of the construction industry.
The current state-of-trade inquiry by the Building Employers Confederation suggests that the outlook for the building industry is "bleak". Building industry output is expected to fall this year, reversing the modest recovery of the past two years. The inquiry, which was undertaken among 500 Building Employers Confederation members of all types and sizes throughout Britain, showed that barely one quarter of those questioned were working at full or almost full capacity. Some 41 per cent. of those questioned expected their work load to fall in 1985, and only 23 per cent. expected an increase. The same dismal prospect is offered by the Federation of Master Builders. It reports:
that only 26 per cent. of companies in its sample are now working at full capacity, and puts the blame firmly upon the combined effects of government restraint on public expenditure and the imposition of VAT on alterations".
Therefore, the Government's proposals for further cuts in capital spending by local authorities are not good news for the construction industry.
Then there is the impact that this will have upon local authorities. We are discussing yet another stage in the stop-go process of local authority capital programmes. The one thing that local authorities can be certain of is complete uncertainty. They were lectured by Ministers about underspending. Indeed, they were lectured by the Prime Minister herself before the general election when the Government were anxious to engineer some signs of activity. Now that local authorities have geared themselves up in order to respond to that challenge they are threatened with penalties for alleged overspending.
Ministers have encouraged local authorities to sell homes and land in order to build up their capital assets. As recently as 18 July 1984 when the Secretary of State for the Environment announced some degree of restraint upon


local authority capital expenditure, he was still encouraging local authorities to build up their capital assets. He said:
This arrangement leaves every authority with the incentive to continue to make sales and so to add to the prescribed proportion of receipts which they will be free to spend.
He continued:
In this way, they can spend without adding to net public expenditure."— [Official Report, 18 July 1984; Vol. 64, c. 331.]
I suggest that that is a very different picture from the one that is being presented to the House today by the Minister. We ought to be very concerned about the impact of these cuts upon ordinary people.
I take first the council tenants. Many hon. Members understand the problems facing many large council estates, particularly those whose construction involved various forms of system building in the 1960s and the 1970s. It is wrong for Ministers to blame local authorities for the problems created by system building. Governments of all parties put pressure upon local authorities to adopt system building, saying that it would be cheaper and faster. It turned out to be neither and resulted in a product that has become unacceptable to the many tenants who are forced to live in that kind of housing.
I shall give one example from my own constituency, but I have no doubt that it is typical of the experience of many other hon. Members. The Morris Walk estate was erected in the 1960s. It was a system-built estate and received a design award, which tells us something about the attitude of architects towards system building in the 1960s. That estate is now plagued by worrying structural defects. It has major damp and condensation problems; it suffers from rotting window frames; there is an expensive and completely ineffective heating system which tempts far too many tenants to use calor gas, with all its associated risks in that kind of building. The tenants have campaigned for years for the sensible modernisation, improvement and rehabilitation of their homes. At last a start has been made on a couple of the blocks, yet the future of that rehabilitation programme is thrown into turmoil because of doubts about the continued availability of finance, even though the local authorities concerned have the required resources.
A number of estates in my constituency do not face such serious difficulties but need major rehabilitation work. Other estates do not need major improvement or repair, but their comparatively simple problems could be solved by, for example, the provision of entryphones to keep out the vandals and prevent the nuisances which plague so many council estates. Even that kind of modest programme is now thrown into uncertainty because of doubts about the availability of finance. Tenants find it very hard to understand why they should be required to go on living in what they, with great justification, regard as substandard conditions when the local authorities have the cash available to tackle the problem. I listened with great care to the Minister's explanation, but if he were to come with me to the Moms Walk estate and offer his explanation to my constituents he would get a very short, sharp and colourful response. I challenge him to try to explain to ordinary people the impact of the policies that he is advocating.
I turn to the impact of these cuts upon owner-occupiers, in particular the impact upon those owner-occupiers who were encouraged to buy old properties on the basis that repair, improvement and maintenance grants would be

fairly readily available. I pay tribute to the way in which the Government boosted that programme before the general election in 1983. There was a very effective increase in the take-up of repair and improvement grants. In 1983 there was a 121 per cent. increase in the take-up, with 230,000 grants being made. However, as was pointed out in an earlier intervention, that took place before the general election of 1983. The picture now is very different. There are cash constraints. Repair grants are rationed in many local authorities. Many of those who are in the queue for repair grants have absolutely no chance of getting them because of the constraints upon the available resources. The National Home Improvement Council referred to this problem. It said:
Financial constraints are also likely to force authorities to reduce the resources allocated to grant aid in the current financial year.
It continued:
The prospects for subsequent years are no more encouraging, so that it is anticipated that the peak of activity generated by the boost to grants is now past.
That was said before the cuts which we are now debating. Therefore, the prospects for many owner-occupiers who believed that they would receive repair grants are not very good.
On the impact of the capital spending cuts upon the nation as a whole, I believe that there is general agreement that the work which will be delayed because of these capital spending cuts will have to be carried out at some time or another. I doubt whether the next generation will easily forgive us if we hand over to them an infrastructure that is shabby, seedy and down at heel. If the Minister considers that comment to be unfair or exaggerated, I suggest that he should consider the lifestyle of many of the ordinary citizens of this country. He should look at the quality of life that is inflicted upon them. He should consider the real position in many of our urban areas Let him go to the south-east London area which my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I represent. Let him look at the holes in the road, the broken paving stones, the boarded-up flats, the graffiti-covered walls and the vandalised facilities. A vast amount of new building, repair work and improvement needs to be carried out in terms of both housing and the infrastructure generally.
The construction industry is ready, willing and able to carry out the task. The construction industry could call upon a vast army of unemployed building trade workers to do the work. The local authorities have the cash in the bank to pay for the work. All that stands in its way is the Government's blind adherence to an incomprehensible economic dogma. That is why we shall support the motion tonight.

Mr. Michael Howard: When this matter was debated on 19 December 1984, I sought to support the Government's attitude on the basis that it was essential to keep interest rates as low as possible in order to enhance the general economic climate in which the wealth-creating private sector of our econony can operate. I believed it to be essential that interest rates should be kept as low as possible in order to create the maximum number of viable, lasting jobs in our economy, the kind of jobs which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are accustomed to call real jobs. I am encouraged to find that the phrase "real jobs" appears in the Opposition


motion. I hope that it marks an advance in their thinking and that they grasp the significance of the concept which underlies that phrase.
Since then, we have seen developments in interest rates which are not entirely helpful to the kind of developments that I am anxious to see in the furtherance of the Government's economic objectives. But that makes the need for the Government's policies more rather than less important. It reinforces the need for the kind of control which is exemplified in this policy and it makes it even more important that we do not give the impression on world markets that the Government's grip on the economy is weakening and that their strategy has lost the force which underlies the achievement of the objectives to which so many of us attach so much importance.
When we debated the matter last, the concern that was expressed by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends was based largely on the extent to which the Government's proposals were seen as interfering with the autonomy of local government. That matter was referred to by many during that debate and was touched upon by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) a few moments ago.
The Government's proposals mark no change in principle in the relationship between central and local government. During the debate that we had in December, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who we are all sorry not to see in his place this evening, intervened to suggest that the way in which the matter was dealt with in the autumn statement would lead an interested reader of that document to suppose that the Government intended local authorities to be able to spend all the capital receipts which they received from the sale of council houses and other assets. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend had given the matter long and serious study before he made that intervention, but I am bound to say that his intervention smacked more of the kind of ingenious and imaginative improvisation of which the profession to which he and I belong are rightly proud than it did of long and serious study.
There has been a limit on the proportion of receipts from the sale of such assets which local authorities have been permitted to spend ever since the introduction of this system of control of local authority capital expenditure in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. This year, that prescribed proportion is 40 per cent. It is to be reduced next year and was previously 50 per cent. There has always been a limit on the proportion of receipts from sales which local authorities were able to spend.
If one goes back beyond the introduction of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, one finds that the control then exercised by Government over local authority spending and borrowing in such matters was even more restrictive. Before that Act, under the previous Labour Government, permission had to be sought project by project for such spending. It was control of a most restrictive and detailed kind and it was exercised on a detailed basis.
To those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who were tempted by the argument that the proposals represent an interference in the autonomy of local government, I would say that the introduction of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 marked a relaxation by the Government of the extent to which Government interfered

in such matters; that ever since that Act has been introduced there has been contained in it a restriction on the proportion of receipts from the sale of capital assets which local authorities have been permitted to spend, and that therefore there can arise no conceivable question of principle in the Government's proposals.
That does not deal with the point which has featured in so many of the contributions that have been made to today's debate. Those contributions have been concerned, rightly, with the effect of the Government's proposals on the amount of money which can be spent on what are undoubtedly the housing needs of large numbers of our citizens.
There was something in what the hon. Member for Woolwich said, when he recognised a common view across the House, that much could be done and that much needs to be done to improve the housing conditions of our people. Of course that is so. But equally it will avail our people little if we seek to spend money now on the purported objective of improving housing conditions when, by doing so, we damage the objectives of sustained growth and improvement in the economy. That must be the overriding objective. It is not impossible to explain that to people.
The hon. Gentleman extended an invitation to my hon. Friend the Minister to visit a housing estate in his constituency and explain the Government's policy to the people. I can understand why he extended that invitation. Those of us who are familiar with the activities of the alliance in such matters know full well that it is not in the business of trying to explain unpalatable truths to the people whom we represent. It is in the business of pretending to the people whom we represent that difficult choices do not exist; that there is some escape into a political option where one does not have to choose between more or less public spending, more or less taxation, more or less borrowing and higher or lower interest rates, and that all will be all right if only one trusts the alliance. But it is not impossible to explain such matters to those whom we represent.
Undoubtedly, the district council which is conterminous with my constituency would like to spend more money on housing next year than it is permitted to spend by the Government. As it happens, it is also true that it will be permitted by the Government to spend more on housing than it is spending this year and more than it spent in every year but one previously, particularly on rehabilitation and improvement grants.
We have a duty to explain such matters to those whom we represent. They will understand and see, as they have done in the past and as they did at the election, that the overriding objective to which we must address ourselves is the creation of conditions in our economy which will lead to a lasting improvement in the standard of living of all our people. That will include an improvement in housing conditions. They will see that it would be folly to pursue policies at this moment which might lead to some short-term improvement in housing but which would do lasting damage to the rest of the economy and in time to housing as well. That is why I shall support the Government in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said that there was no division in the House over social


objectives — and we all agree that we need a housing policy that will satisfy Britain's needs — but that we must relinquish those objectives in the short term until the longer-term economic objectives are achieved.
Labour Members, and, I suspect, many millions of people in the country, worry about when those long-term economic objectives will be realised. When I listened to the Minister and to the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, I got the impression that we had not had a Conservative Government for the past six years and that they were doing their best to distance themselves from the Government. I can understand that. If I were a Conservative Member, I would want to do exactly the same.
There is a point in the life of the Government, perhaps six years is not too short a time, when Conservative Members must accept that they are partly responsible for the state of the country's economy, that they have some responsibility for the social objectives." They cannot say that they are not responsible for social objectives by pretending that they are meanwhile concentrating on maximising long-term economic objectives. Judging from the way that matters are progressing, we shall never achieve those long-term economic objectives.
I suspect that the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe introduced implicitly a novel political doctrine, which is that we go back on each occasion to the electorate and say "We failed miserably in all our economic policies, but we have the same social objectives as the Labour party and the alliance, so please give us another five years because just over the horizon is the achievement of those economic objectives. Give us a mandate again and we shall continue to work for those long-term economic objectives." The reality is that the realisation of those objectives will always be long term, and many of us think that they will never be realised. That is the backcloth to today's debate.

Mr. Robert Wareing: Is it not ironic that, although the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) believes that the objectives of the Government's economic policy should transcend even the needs of people living in squalor in many of our urban areas, no doubt he would support the profligate expenditure by the same Government on Trident, which the Secretary of State admits has increased in cost threefold or fourfold? What is the difference between the two?

Mr. Fatchett: I am pleased that I gave way to my hon. Friend, because he made an important point which I was just about to make myself.
The central point of the debate is that it emphasises the important difference between the parties on social and economic issues, and it lays bare the difference in terms of values.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) set out in great detail the national housing picture. It is a depressing one and it is reproduced in city after city. Sadly, it is reproduced in my own city of Leeds; a proud city now facing a multitude of housing problems.
In the city of Leeds, on 31 December last year we had 18,536 households on the waiting list. Of those, 1,200 qualified under the homeless persons legislation. An

additional 3,006 households were in substandard housing or had special needs priorities. Those are depressing figures.
In addition, in the city of Leeds we have the problems of system-built housing, all the difficulties created by that type of housing, and all the difficulties created by the fact that we have a Government who are not prepared to finance the public sector in any meaningful sense to deal with the problems associated with system-building.
We in the city of Leeds made a major mistake. In September last year we invited the Secretary of State for the Environment to come to see the city's housing problems. That might be said to be a sensible way for any local authority to approach its problems—bring along the Minister responsible, show him the problems and try to persuade him that they will be alleviated only by injections of cash. The Secretary of State came in September. We took him to some of the inner city areas. He said, "It is dreadful. There are problems here." We thought that we had cracked it and that we had found a sympathetic Cabinet Minister who would listen to our problems.
We made a bid. Perhaps we were a bit ambitious, but we were encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy. The bid was for £64 million as the housing investment programme allocation for 1985–86. Incidentally, that would only project forward in real terms the value of the HIP which the last Labour Government gave the city in 1978–79, so it was not extravagant. It was a sensible bid, based on the right hon. Gentleman's encouragement.
The Secretary of State has allocated £24·8 million to the city of Leeds, a reduction this year of between £2 million and £2·5 million. The Secretary of State came, he saw and he sympathised. But when it came to finance he did not care a damn about the problems of the city.
In terms of social values, the Government give housing a low priority. I have listened to the rhetoric of Ministers and their supporters on many occasions. The Government's record shows that they care little about homeless people, people on council house waiting lists and people living in system-built houses. They do not bother about them and they are not bothered about a great city such as Leeds. It is all a question of cuts, and further cuts, regardless of the social and personal misery involved.
In the last year of the Labour Government, we in the city of Leeds completed 1,700 houses in the public sector. In 1983–84 the figure was already down to 530. In this financial year we have a start of 101 new council houses. How can we solve the problems of the city with its waiting list when we have a new build programme of 101 houses?
The Minister will say that the Government are shifting resources away from the public sector into the private sector and that it is the private sector which will provide the houses so that the housing stock does not deteriorate. Looking at the national picture, we see that that is not the reality.
A comparison of the requirement for housing looked at on a national scale with private sector and public sector building combined demonstrates that we are well below our overall building requirement. The Minister is presiding over the decay of our housing stock. He says that the Government have made great efforts to help owner-occupiers in terms of improvement and repair grants, but


that is not the stark reality that we find in our surgeries and in the letters that we receive daily from people who have made applications for improvement and repair grants.
The reality in Leeds and many other parts of the country is that it is impossible to get a repair or an improvement grant, and people are going on to waiting lists. In my constituency, which is in an inner city area, there are large numbers of Victorian and Edwardian houses which need repair and renovation. Many of them are owner-occupied. Because of Government policies, those people have no hope. In terms of social values, we find that housing is given a low priority by the Government.
I am interested in the language of politics and the way in which the Conservative party likes to present its policies. The Conservatives say that they are the party of opportunity. They say that they are opening Britain's society so that the thrusters — people with ability and enterprise — can take the opportunities presented to them. The Prime Minister says again and again, "We are the enterprise and opportunity Government." How does that language of opportunity compare with the record of Britain's housing? It does not compare. What opportunity is there for a young couple in my constituency who want to move into a council house? What opportunity is there for an elderly couple who want to spend money on improving their house? What opportunity is there for those living in system-built houses with high heating bills caused simply by the nature of the original build?
In the minds of the Conservatives, the language of opportunity extends to a very small sector of society. The reality of opportunity in housing for the vast majority of people does not exist. The Government use opportunity, but they abuse the chances of opportunity for many thousands of people.

Mr. Gow: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would have denied the 800,000 former local authority tenants who were given the right to buy by the Government and bought their houses that opportunity?

Mr. Fatchett: I am interested in the fact that we have a Minister who has not only a myopic interpretation of his responsibilities as Minister for Housing, but a limited brief from his civil servants. There is more to housing policy than the right to buy a council house.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Answer the Minister.

Mr. Fatchett: I shall certainly answer the Minister, and I should love to hear the Minister answer some of our questions.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: rose—

Mr. Fatchett: I shall not give way, because I must answer the Minister's question.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Get on with it, then.

Mr. Fatchett: I do not wish to take on the apprentice boy when I have the craftsman.
We are talking about opportunity across the whole housing market. The Minister is responsible for owner-occupiers, people in need of improvement grants and people on waiting lists, but he is not looking after them. A housing policy should be more than the right to buy, and it is about time that the Government recognised that. As

I believe in local autonomy and democracy, I would not force local authorities to sell council houses. That is a sensible argument. If the local electorate vote for councillors who believe in selling council houses, so be it, but that is their choice. It is no good the Minister smiling at that point, because we know the Government's record on local democracy. The Labour party believes in local democracy, but the Government do not, which is why they force a range of policies on local authorities.
I turn from the social implications of the Government's policy to questions of economic management. Time and again the Government tell us that they have expertise in managing the economy. Sometimes I wonder when they will display it. I guess that it is a covert expertise, which on some future occasion they will show to the public's advantage. Does it make economic sense for local authorities to be unable to plan on capital receipts from one year to another? Who would manage a business on that basis? The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe said that receipts had been cut from 50 per cent. to 40 per cent. to 20 per cent., and seemed to find satisfaction in it. Perhaps it is part of the hair shirt of economic management, but, in reality, no local authority can manage its affairs if it does not know how much it will receive in capital receipts from year to year. The Secretary of State made his statement seven days before Christmas. That is during local authorities' budget season and gives them no time to plan ahead.
The Government talk about managing resources, but they are a Government of waste. The major criticism of the Government is that they are wasting natural resources when they need to be spent in ways which will be socially and economically beneficial. The Government preside over decay of the infrastructure, and, of many inner cities. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of skilled building trade workers are unemployed. Although the Government say that they do not believe in public spending, they are happy to spend £17 billion to keep people unemployed.
It does not need a great deal of imagination or political will to see that when we need money spent on the infrastructure and when our people have the necessary skills, we can match resources to people and satisfy the need. However, political will and intellectual commitment are needed to do that. The Government have neither the political will nor the intellectual commitment and ability to carry out that task. Until we have a Government with that sort of ability, the country will face further decay in our inner cities and in housing, and the homeless, those on council house waiting lists and the unemployed, who are unemployed simply because of the Government's disastrous policies, will face more and more misery.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I was interested to listen to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). Towards the end of his speech he touched on an issue which worries me—that is, the ability of local authorities to manage their own affairs. For some time I have been deeply worried about Government interference in and attitude to local authorities. I speak as one who served for some years in local government, and as the parliamentary adviser to the Construction Plant Hire Association. Therefore, I am well aware of the deep problems facing that industry. I also speak on behalf of the area which I have the honour to represent.
I must say to my hon. Friend the Minister, who gave a robust explanation of the Government's decision on capital receipts, that I shall not join him in the Lobby tonight. I intend to abstain because I do not understand the logic behind the Government's decision regarding the capital expenditure and capital receipts of local authorities. My decision to abstain is also tied up with the rate support grant settlement. Once again it has heavily penalised my local authority, Macclesfield borough council. That burden is wholly contrary to the expectations which were raised in the undertakings given at the conclusion of last year's settlement.
I am trying to paint the reasons for not supporting the Government. Next year, my council will lose grant worth £370,000, irrespective of the amount that it now cannot spend from capital receipts. That is on top of a loss of about £186,000 for the present financial year. The officers and elected members of my authority confidently expected that the settlement this year would not have such a drastic effect on authorities which are, to use the Government's term, low spenders and have consistently followed Government policies on expenditure.
In support of its case, the council has followed policies which keep spending at or below target and well below the grant-related expenditure assessment figure; has had appreciable success in reducing staffing levels — 195 posts have gone during the past 10 years, which is a sizeable number for a non-metropolitan district council; keeps its own expenditure under careful scrutiny and control and at levels which have only increased some way below inflation; provides favourable comparative statistics on the costs of its services; provides its own value-for-money team in a constant search for greater economy and efficiency; has produced extremely favourable reports from its private auditors; and keeps within the Government's capital allocations. That is not a bad record for an authority, and I am glad that the Minister nods in agreement.
Macclesfield borough council has pursued central Government policies relating to public expenditure under both this and the previous Government. We believe that the House has a right to dictate, and that if it lays down laws the authority must carry them out. I am worried about many of the legislative measures that the Government are introducing, because they fail to realise the importance of local government. If local government is to have any meaning, it must be allowed to manage its own affairs.
My local authority's success is measured by its performance, which shows that its increase in rate levy during a 10-year period from 1974–75 to 1984–85 is only 13 per cent., as against an increase in the retail price index of more than 180 per cent. This year it will levy the lowest rate poundage in Cheshire for the ninth successive year.
Those achievements have taken place despite the increases in some services necessitated, as in many other areas, by demographic factors and, sadly, the imposition by Parliament of additional responsibilities. Once again, the council's expenditure will be below the rate of inflation. An increase of 3·7 per cent. is envisaged for the forthcoming year. Like all responsible authorities, the council wishes to do everything possible to avoid increasing the burden on the ratepayers, but increased efficiency and economy can no longer keep pace with the severe losses in grant compounded by the capital spending restrictions. Rates will have to be increased by about 12 per cent., 9·6 per cent. of which is a direct result of

Government intervention and failure to honour commitments given at last year's rate support grant settlement. Only 2·4 per cent. reflects increased spending by the council.
Many other issues have already been raised. My council, too, will have to reduce considerably the money available for improvement grants. It is one of the few authorities in the north-west seeking to keep a vestige of its housing improvement scheme going. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) has said that housing improvement grants in his area will be cut almost completely due to lack of resources. The growth and industry of Macclesfield formed part of the industrial revolution and there are many terraced houses which, as I know my hon. Friend the Minister agrees, could provide excellent homes not just for the elderly but for first-time buyers. Those houses are part of long-established, stable communities in towns such as Macclesfield, but they require urgent improvement and as a result of Government diktats the money will not be available. As a consequence, many may have to be demolished rather than improved and the cost of constructing new houses or improving those which remain when money becomes available by permission of the Government will be very much higher.
The Government's action in limiting the amount of receipts that can be spent means that Macclesfield council will have to reduce the number of local authority mortgages. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) suggests that local authorities have no right to be involved in the mortgage business, but the House has emphasised on many occasions the part that local authorities have to play in this respect. I remind my hon. Friend that local authorities are prepared to cover types of housing that building societies refuse to cover and those properties are very important to the communities in which they are located.
The Government's decision will also set back the capital programme for modernisation of council housing in Macclesfield, especially the important programme for the Moss estate, the oldest local authority housing estate in Macclesfield. When the authority housing account is awash with money it is quite wrong that work which will improve the standard of life for many of my constituents is not to be allowed to take place. I am extremely concerned about that, quite apart from the employment implications.
The borough council is now constructing only specialist accommodation for elderly persons. The leader of the council, Mrs. Margaret Duddy, and the Conservative group which controls it strongly oppose the Government's policy which has led to the shelving of two such projects for the elderly, despite the urgent need for them. When that accommodation is finally built, of course, the cost will be a great deal higher.
On the general rate capital fund, 30 per cent. of receipts can be spent. The allocation to Macclesfield this year, however, was only £520,000 on the general rate allocation fund. In addition, the council may spend 30 per cent. of its capital receipts, but the figure for next year—there is nothing that we can do about the year already past—has been reduced to £499,000. As a result, there will be no resources to provide a multi-storey car park. The cost of even a modest project is about £1 million and the borough council has plenty of money, but the Government say that it cannot use that money to fund its own projects.
The council has a fine reputation for good housekeeping and I challenge my hon. Friend the Minister to check that. It is building a new swimming pool as an extension of the excellent leisure centre which was built without borrowing one penny. The swimming pool project has been funded by a five-year covenant scheme organised through merchant bankers Morgan Grenfell. The council has been able to pay Morgan Grenfell as soon as bills are submitted by the contractors, thus avoiding any interest charges. From April this year, however, the council will not be allowed to use the money in its own bank account to pay Morgan Grenfell as and when bills are submitted by the contractors. As a result, the project will cost more—at the ratepayers' expense—and scarce resources will have to be used to pay interest charges which benefit no one but the banks.
The borough council has the resources to carry out all the projects that I have mentioned. The housing revenue account is currently being credited with about £750,000 per year from housing capital account interest. The account is awash with money. Council house rents will not be increased this year. I welcome that decision, as will all council tenants in the area. From the information that I have given, my hon. Friend the Minister will surely appreciate that a prudent, thrifty and responsible council is suffering in its ability to plan for the future due to ham-fisted Government policies which take no account of the good practice of that council over so many years, and the Department has figures to prove what I am saying.
As I have great respect for my hon. Friend the Minister, it is with regret that I must inform him that I shall not be supporting the Government in the Lobby today. My hon. Friend advanced a highly articulate case which may have a bearing on many authorities, but it has no relevance whatever to Macclesfield council, which manages its affairs so responsibly. Indeed, it is an insult to the elected councillors and the first-rate officers who serve the residents of the borough. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to look again at the difficult cases, many of which have been and will continue to be highlighted in this debate.

Mr. Peter Pike: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I spent three weeks in Macclesfield during the 1971 by-election campaign, seeking to ensure that the hon. Gentleman was not elected, but I welcome his statement that he will not support the Government today. I hope that, having heard the rest of this short debate, he and a number of other Conservative Members will have the courage to come into the Lobby with the Opposition and to vote against the Government. I sincerely believe that that is the only way to get the Government to think again on this vital issue.
Councils of all political persuasions throughout the country are critical of the Government over the capital allocations for the forthcoming year, particularly in regard to the spending of capital receipts. Even the friends of the Conservatives in industry are concerned about the consequences of the Government's proposals. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) referred to a document produced by the Building Employers Confederation. That is one of many examples of concern being expressed by industry and commerce about what the Government are doing.
On Saturday of last week I was speaking to a prominent member of the Conservative party in north-east Lancashire; until a few years ago he was the leader of an authority close to my constituency. His business is in the construction industry and he made it clear to me that the Government's action would force many building companies, though not his, out of existence, which in turn would put people out of work. There are, therefore, those two aspects: first, we shall not be able to deal with the problems facing local government and, secondly, we shall add to the number of people unemployed.
Nationally, the proposal for next year involves cuts of over £1 billion in housing provision. That, in cash terms, represents a spending cut of 19 per cent. Urgently required housing programmes involving new build, sheltered housing, improvement and repair grants and even mandatory grants will be threatened in some areas.
The forecast of additional unemployment in the housing sphere alone arising from the Government's proposals is between 75,000 and 150,000. For the whole of the capital programme for 1985–86, the Government have projected a 28 per cent. cut, from £5·1 billion to £3·8 billion. It is a cut almost too serious to contemplate.
A large part of capital spending occurs in the private sector, not within local authorities' direct works departments. Even councils which win contracts — for improvement work or new build — must purchase materials, and that in turn provides work for the private sector. No wonder private companies in the industry are concerned about what will happen as a result of the cuts.
People in industry find it surprising that councils do not know, until a late stage, the extent of their capital programmes. That means that many councils cannot plan ahead sufficiently far to be properly viable. Compared with that situation, most industries work on a five-year rolling programme and are thus able to plan well ahead.
The Minister may say that councils have been assured of 80 per cent. of expenditure so long as they comply with certain guidelines and do not defy Government policy. That will not be sufficient and, in any event, it will give them only one third of what they really require.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) dealt with two important issues. First, he said that the Secretary of State had visited his area. We in Burnley did not get the Secretary of State; we got the Minister for Housing and Construction. He examined the housing problems in my constituency in the public and private sectors. He saw some of the major problems facing the borough council and expressed considerable sympathy. Unfortunately, that sympathy has not been matched with allocations which will enable the authority to deal with its problems. We gave the Minister a potato pie lunch. In view of the response from the Department, he would be lucky now to get a biscuit. I hope that he will bear in mind the difficulties that we face locally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central referred, secondly, to council house sales. The Government tend to hold these sales up as a glowing solution to the housing problem. My position is clear: I am opposed to the compulsory sale of council houses. I am not opposed to people buying their own homes—indeed, I would give every encouragement to foster home ownership — but every local council should have the right to determine its policy on council house sales according to local circumstances.
Even if one accepts the Government's view that everybody should have the right to buy, that right is not the answer for many people who live in council houses. The elderly, the unemployed and many others will never have the opportunity in their lifetime to buy the property in which they live, so the right-to-buy policy holds no attraction for them.
That policy creates a problem for them and for local authorities. In my area we have sold almost 1,000 council houses, but an examination of the places in which they have been sold shows that we have sold almost none on the problem estates. On the attractive estates, on the other hand, large numbers of properties have been sold. Indeed, we are rapidly reaching the position when, on some of those estates, 50 per cent. of the properties will be in private occupation.
That means that people living in less favourable houses have a slim chance of getting transferred to more decent accommodation. I accept, as I said, that people should have the right to buy — I would hope that everybody could buy their own homes—but perhaps we should try to assist people to move out of council houses so that others may have the opportunity to move into better homes.
Because of the way in which subsidies have been changed, financial burdens and other problems have been forced on to council tenants, with the rents charged to those who are not in receipt of housing benefit reaching massive levels. The way in which the Government have dealt with housing revenue accounts means that people who do not buy the property in which they live, if they are in a position to buy are silly because the financial attraction to buy is so great. But not everybody would want to buy if there was parity of treatment between people in the private sector and those living in municipal housing.

Mr. Heddle: The hon. Gentleman said that he accepted that people had the right to buy, and I am sure that Hansard will record faithfully his comments about that. So that his opponent at the next election may be sure where he stands in the matter, will he confirm that if people have the right to buy the council in those circumstances has a duty to sell?

Mr. Pike: I did not quite use the words that the hon. Gentleman attributes to me. I said that I believed that people had the right to buy their own houses, but I went on clearly to say that the policy of selling council houses should be determined at local level. Of course people have the right to buy their houses, but councils should not be forced to sell. My local council may now wish to sell its houses because it now has empty properties — this applies in the public and private sectors—because of the large number of people who have moved away from the town due to lack of employment.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: My hon. Friend must not be tempted by the titillating observations of the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) to enter into an argument on the right to buy and the right to sell. The bone of contention is that the right to buy exists. The accumulated reserves referred to in the motion are the reserves of capital receipts arising from the right to buy. If the proportion of capital reserves for the provision of new housing was not limited, the proposal would be to bring men and materials together to provide new houses to meet what authorities judged to be their needs.

Therefore, that would not affect the economy adversely. If that is conceded, the Minister's case for restricting tae proportion is lost.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend has made a valuable point. Many people accept the Government's case that capital receipts have an effect on the public sector borrowing requirement; many others disagree with that. Certainly I do not share the view that capital receipts should be restricted in that way.
The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) spoke about transferring mortgages from councils to building societies. When I was leader of Burnley council we tried to transfer our mortgages to the National Provincial building society—or the Burnley, as it was at that time. After considerable resistance from the Government, ultimately we got their agreement to that transfer. It was done on a voluntary basis. Obviously, if people were getting a cheaper interest rate it was sensible for them to take up the option to transfer. It was also to the advantage of the council because, instead of getting capital in dribs and drabs, it got it all in one go. That should be done wherever possible, but it is nonsense to do it if the council cannot use the receipts.
I hope the Minister will refer in his reply to what St. Albans council has done, as reported in the press this week. It has transferred its mortgages to a merchant banker for a commission fee. There has been a cash exchange, with no interest paid. This will give the council the right to use the money. I do not know all the details, but no doubt the Minister and his Department are aware of them, and he should comment on that arrangement.
Burnley's HIP bid for 1985–86 was £10,793,000 and the allocation was £4,288,000 — a reduction of £1 million on this year. The amount we got this year was completely inadequate. We shall have a shortfall next year of at least £6·5 million. When the council prepared that bid, it was a realistic bid which did not go over the top.
We have many houses in Burnley which need improvement. We have over 1,000 pre-war council houses that the council cannot do anything about. There are many houses in the private sector which need improvement, but the council cannot give the necessary grants. A particular problem arises where people were given prior approval for work to be done because of its urgent nature and they cannot get the money to pay the bills. That must be of concern to the Minister.
In regard to other services, we bid for £2,044,000 and the allocation was £401,000. Even at this stage, next year's urban aid allocation is not known, so we cannot plan ahead. The derelict land reclamation figures have not yet been finalised for next year. The Inland Revenue is reported to want retrospective legislation which would have the effect of altering the present leasing arrangements. Again, that could have disastrous effects for local government.
The council has had consultations with the chamber of commerce and industry, no great ally of the Labour party. It made three points on the Burnley budget. First, it failed to understand the logic of keeping back capital receipts, which are limited to 20 per cent. Secondly, it clearly understood the injustice to the local ratepayers of withdrawing in effect a 5p rate due to the general reduction in rate support grant to just over 48 per cent. Thirdly, it felt that the local authority, like a private sector company, should be able to plan over a longer period than one year.
These are the problems that local government faces. In addition to my authority's problem, Lancashire county council has £2 million of capital receipts which it cannot use. This causes major problems. The Government should think again. I hope that many hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Macclesfield, will join us in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I understand and believe that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) cares for the needs of his constituents, just as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) cares for the needs and requirements of his. I only wish that Opposition Members would appreciate that we on the Conservative side also care for the needs and requirements of our constituents. If they were to examine objectively the provision of Conservative local authority areas compared with Labour local authority areas they would find that not only do we care but that we actually provide.
The Opposition have another motivation. They are hooked on public money to sustain and expand the Socialist republics, the very leaders of which are on the management committees that are responsible for the reselection of many Labour Members.
I note a correspondence between depressed areas and Socialism. Where there is Socialism there is a depressed area, and where there is a depressed area there is Socialism. I am not sure which comes first, which is the chicken and which is the egg, but many Socialist areas have a vested interest in the dependence of their clients and their constituents and a vested interest in continued depression in the area so that they can climb on the back of the poverty of their people to try to get back to the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Marlow: I am afraid there is not time for me to give way.
Some of my hon. Friends are concerned about the Government's approach to local authority capital expenditure, but they are also concerned about the level of public expenditure. They know that public expenditure increases, either taxation increases or interest rates increase and the economic problems of the country increase. Some of my hon. Friends believe that there is a particular virtue in local authority capital expenditure. I would agree that if we can cut local authority revenue expenditure we should spend more on capital, but an increase in local authority capital expenditure does not produce more jobs than leaving that money with industry and with the productive sector of the economy.
Another point that those few of my hon. Friends who are concerned about the issue have passed by and have not yet noticed is that the infrastructure is being improved. We are spending more on all areas of infrastructure, except for one area, public sector housing. I wonder sometimes what it is that concerns some of my hon. Friends. Of course, many of them had a background in local government. Somewhere in the back of their minds there is this love affair with their first political institution, local government. What they want the Government to produce

above all is a land fit for local government to live in. It is far more important that we should produce a land fit for our people to live in.
In some local authority areas some of our people are appallingly abused. Some of the areas that have Left-wing Labour local authorities look upon local government not as an opportunity to provide services for the people who are their constituents but as a platform for propaganda and social engineering. They have a cynical and complete disregard for the people under their charge. They are concerned with revolution, and heaven help the casualties among those for whom they have responsibility.

Mr. John Fraser: rose—

Mr. Marlow: No, I shall not give way. Time does not permit me to do so.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman was prepared to give way to me yesterday.

Mr. Marlow: Yes, but the circumstances today are quite different, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
I think that there is a growing awareness that in any area of public endeavour there is growing a more recognisable conflict between the interests of the public sector unions and the interests and needs of those who live in the area. Increasingly the needs of the local people are being put on one side. In many areas of local government we should strive towards giving it the responsibility mainly to regulate and control services within its area. However, the services should be provided by the private sector and not by local government.
Local authority housing has been perhaps the greatest human and environmental disaster that Britain has seen since the war. Those who doubt that should go abroad and compare the urban and inner city areas of other countries in the European Community with like areas in Britain. They will find that the housing that is provided in other member states is provided partly by municipal means but mainly by the private sector. We should compare the environment in those areas with that of our own. It is clear that something has gone wrong somewhere.
What has gone wrong? First, local government housing has now outgrown its strength. After the war the average local authority was responsible for about 1,400 houses. It is now responsible, on average, for about 14,000 houses. It is manifest that in many areas — I accept that this cannot be said of all areas — authorities have not retained the ability to control, manage and look after housing under their control.
Another problem has been the politicisation of local authorities. There were times when councils were Labour-controlled and sometimes Conservative-controlled but, whatever their complexion, they were concerned mainly with the needs of those in their areas. Politics has taken over with a vengeance.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) spoke about Lambeth recently. He knows as well as I do that Lambeth raises £35 million a year in rents and that it costs the borough £135 million a year to run, manage and finance its housing. That means that the taxpayer and the ratepayer has to make up £100 million. At the same time Lambeth proudly prepares expensive glossy pamphlets proclaiming this fact which it has the cheek to put through people's doors.
Let us give credit to Lambeth where credit is due.

Mr. Fraser: The Lambeth council gave the hon. Gentleman a grant.

Mr. Marlow: That is a silly point.
Over the past year the number of void houses in Lambeth has been reduced. A comparison should be made with Liverpool. In Liverpool, virtually one house in 10 is void. There are twice as many voids in Liverpool as in Birmingham — I pay credit to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) — and Birmingham has about twice as many houses in its area as Liverpool. Surely there is a lesson to be learnt there somewhere. Someone is getting it wrong. Someone is causing mischief in this area.
We all know that there are severe problems of homelessness, inadequate housing and lack of housing for the elderly. We all want to do something about these problems. However, we have got the formula wrong. The public sector housing formula is wrong. Rate controls and political vindictiveness towards the private sector have got the private sector wrong as well.

Mr. John Fraser: rose—

Mr. Marlow: No, I shall not give way for the reason that I have already given.
I believe that there is a solution to the problem and that the Government, in all our interests, are moving courageously towards it. The solution lies in moving towards privatisation. This has been done successfully elsewhere in the economy. It has been successful for those for whom services are provided and for those who operate the provision of the services. We are moving towards privatisation. This is not confined to the sale of council houses. I mean more than that. We are moving towards privatisation in housing. We want to introduce private skills and capital. We want to introduce professionalism as far and as fast as we can into the housing sector for the benefit of those who need houses and not for political reasons. People have suffered so badly in some of our city areas and in some of our Socialist republics since the war. In many areas conditions are getting worse rather than better. However, there have recently been valuable developments.
The hon. Member for Burnley wants to know what to do about housing in his constituency. He should take a look at Stockbridge village, where there are 3,000 houses. The private sector has been brought in. A trust has been set up and the environment has been improved. We should move in that direction. There is the way forward. That is where help lies.

Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction will be aware that it is the policy of some local authorities — it does not matter whether they are Conservative or Labour controlled — to help those who live within the area. They have done what they can to help them. They have sold off some of the tower blocks and deck-access housing to private sector companies, which have developed them and produced decent, reasonable housing from slums. That is the way in which we want to go.
We should encourage the private sector of housing to help produce accommodation for the elderly, single people and one-parent families. It has the skills and it will do it if it is given the opportunity to do so. It will provide a

better environment and better housing than at present. The tragedy is that Labour Members do not embrace this policy for they are concerned as Conservative Members to provide the housing that is needed. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction that the time may come when we shall have to remove the roadblocks which are being erected to prevent improvement. At some stage we may need to ask local authorities to move some of their housing estates across to the private sector. Of course, they would have to be moved to licensed companies and there should be a great deal of control and restraint in terms of housing allocation, standards and a commitment to make improvements. Such companies may well be able to provide a better solution than some of the appalling results that we have now.

Mr. Bill Michie: I, too, understand that all right hon. and hon. Members are concerned about housing. If they make that claim, I am prepared to accept it.
The general tone of the debate, and especially the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), has suggested that privatisation offers the simple solution and that if it is implemented all our problems will go away. If the hon. Gentleman lived in the area that I represent, he would know that the private sector is suffering as much as the public sector. In many instances the standard of accommodation in the private sector is much worse than in the public sector. There are many examples of the private sector pleading with the local authority to help it out with improvement grants or the purchase of large private blocks of flats.
It must be understood that the massive cut in the capital programme and restrictions on capital receipts has had a drastic effect on housing and other services across the board. Sheffield's capital receipts reduction amounts to £8 million and it will lose £3 million in grant. That means that it will lose £11 million in total. That cannot be found overnight from another source, and at the same time plans cannot be changed overnight to take account of the reduction. This has meant that the Sheffield housing programme is over-committed.
Conservative Members may ask, "Why did you over-commit?" The simple answer is that the Government have requested local authorities in the past to plan ahead. Having planned ahead, Sheffield is in the ludicrous position of being over-committed. Like many other authorities, it is still asking the Government to think again and to redress the balance.
It is not so long ago that the Minister for Housing and Construction visited Sheffield. After a good visit and a good debate he conceded that work had to be done almost immediately on some of Sheffield's housing stock, especially on dangerous blocks of flats. We all agreed that it should be done and everyone went away happy, thinking that something would be done.
But what happened? The result was the very opposite of that which we hoped would follow from the Minister's visit. Sheffield received less in capital grants and allocation and now we have lost the flexibility that is provided by capital receipts. This means that the city cannot service the areas which it, and the Government know are priorities because of the dangers they pose.
Ministers and the city council have agreed that those living in the Broomhall flats should be decanted to other


properties. That presents a difficulty, as we cannot achieve much new build in Sheffield. It has been agreed also that the flats should be demolished once those living in them have been decanted. The bill for demolishing one block of flats at Broomhall is £1 million. That, of course, does not include the costs of finding alternative accommodation and building new housing for those who are still on the waiting list.
There has been a massive cut in the housing improvement programme for the private sector. This has had an effect on many elderly people who need adaptations to their homes and on many who feel that their present accommodation is not conducive to good health. These people are in desperate need of Government money to allow improvements to be carried out.
The massive capital allocation reduction and lack of flexibility in the use of capital receipts has caused a ripple effect upon services such as the social services which look after children in need, those in bad housing, the disabled, infirm and old. We cannot help that department because of the drastic cut in the use of capital receipts. The department has a capital development programme of £658,000. That is less than half last year's allocation. How can a council carry out its statutory obligations if such arbitrary cuts in capital receipts and allowances are made? The amount of £480,000 already allocated to those services leaves only £178,000 for Sheffield to deal with all the problems of the old, the infirm and others.
I am sure that all hon. Members receive details of sad cases every week where a little money spent in the private sector would make life much easier for people living in difficult accommodation whose problems are made worse by infirmity or old age.
The cuts affect building adaptations. The cuts will mean that some non-statutory projects will be shelved. That is important in homes where the chief fire officer has recommended that fire precautions should be taken. Although those are non-statutory obligations, I am sure that no hon. Member will disagree that it would be foolish to ignore the chief fire officer when he talks about property lived in largely by children, the infirm or the old.
I have studied the report of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I cannot understand why Sheffield's allocation is so low and why it has been so severely affected compared with other local authorities. One argument that I have seen used in the press to justify the overall reduction from £116 million to £70 million was the persistent underspending on social services throughout the country. That does not apply to Sheffield, so I do not understand why it has been so heavily penalised.
There appears to be no logical relationship between the proposals for reductions and the size of the authority. The decision does not seem to have been taken on account of need or size of population in a place such as Sheffield. I can only speculate that the allocation relates to contracts already let. If that is the case, I am mystified as to the rationale, because the Secretary of State requested us to hold back on letting contracts during the latter part of 1984–85 to keep within his expenditure targets.
Sheffield has made no formal representation other than what I am saying. The cuts will not just affect the electorate, in particular those in need; they will affect jobs. Jobs will be lost in old people's homes. At least 100 jobs will be lost in Sheffield.
I would appreciate it if the Minister were to take cognisance of the points and anomalies that I have mentioned. Increased strains will be placed upon housing and social service officers. I ask him to reconsider the proposals, but if he feels that he cannot, will he at least think more about their implications and offer a much more realistic and fairer allocation to authorities such as Sheffield? If the Secretary of State cannot do that, will he meet the members of Sheffield's committees and some of the users of the services? There is all-party support in Sheffield for what I am saying. That is how serious the matter is. I hope that the Minister will take those matters on board and consider them more realistically in the near future.

Mr. Roger Gale: I support entirely the need to curb public borrowing for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) expounded so eloquently. I accept entirely the need to use a proportion of capital receipts prudently to invest and generate interest to be offset against local authority borrowing. What is in question is the level of permitted expenditure. It is an issue of degree, not of principle. If the level of permitted expenditure in any one year is too low, under-utilised assets will not be sold, the capital receipts will not be generated and the policy will be counter-productive. That is the position in which we find ourselves today.
If my hon. Friend the Minister is lucky enough to have an heirloom in his attic worth £200 and needs a new washing machine but cannot afford it, he may sell the heirloom to buy the washing machine. If he cannot generate enough revenue from the sale, he may not make the purchase. In that case he would not make the sale. I do not believe that he would sell the heirloom to reduce his overdraft.
It may be parochial, but my local authority is in that position. There is a leisure plan for Thanet which states:
The current financial situation, which has imposed a virtual stand-still on expenditure, is probably the most important reason for the formulation of a Leisure Plan. Given clear guidelines, which create a settled situation, and a corporate approach, the Council could achieve a great deal by making the most of what it has got.
Before Opposition Members make too much of my reference to the "financial situation", I should tell them that that report was written in 1976.
My local authority has, as have many others, the family heirlooms—properties and long leases—that could and should be sold. If the amount of money generated by those sales and available for use on pet projects is insufficient, the properties and leases will not be sold. I therefore believe that the present balance is wrong and that the policy will be counter-productive.
My constituency has an above average number of elderly people living in under-occupied public and private sector houses. Many of them wish to move to sheltered housing. It is desirable to use capital receipts to build sheltered housing for one reason only. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said that he believes it desirable that housing should be built by the private and not the public sector. I endorse his sentiments, except on one point. The elderly people about whom we are talking have been living in public sector accommodation for a long time. Many of them are too old to change


their ways. There is a need for sheltered housing. Were the money available to build it, we should be able to release properties for greater use and for sale.
I wish to deal with mortgages. Each of my two local authorities has about £9·5 million on mortgage. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire that those mortgages should not be in the public sector but should be made available to be bought by the private sector. However, some of those mortgages will have been extended on properties on which building societies would not normally extend mortgages. Unless the receipts from such a handover are sufficient to encourage local authorities to change, I believe that they would sooner sit on the money.
I regret that I shall be unable to join my hon. Friend the Minister in the Lobby tonight because I believe that we have the balance, although not the policy, wrong.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I intend to support the Government in the Lobby tonight because I believe that their position is a reasonable one based on a mix of need, expectation and national good housekeeping. I fear that a fixed percentage use of capital receipts is not necessarily right or fair for all authorities, but I understand the complications and difficulties of trying to apply different percentages in different parts of the country. I understand and acknowledge the deep concern for the construction industry of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), and the impatience of many local authorities which have projects, some good and some bad, in the pipeline.
The motion and the amendment refer to local authorities' own money, a phrase that has been repeated on a number of occasions. Far be it from this lesser Member to question his betters, but it should be remembered that much of that money—in some cases as much as 60 per cent. — has come from central Government finance for housing. Therefore, while the ownership of those reserves does not change, at least some moral substance is given to central Government's right to decide how it should be spent and at what rate.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) mentioned the problem of stop-go. I agree that the construction industry wants not stop-go but long-term stability and planning. I suggest that the spread of capital receipts tends to give some steadiness and underpinning to a council's spending pattern over the years when its right to borrow may fluctuate and cause precisely the stop-go mentioned by the hon. Member for Perry Barr.
The hon. Member also drew the House's attention to slum clearance programmes. I understand that this will vary from town to town. In Nottingham, which is no small city — 300,000 people — by party agreement the city's slum programme ended in 1979–80. Inevitably, the statistics of new build now look sad compared with the new build before the completion of that programme. That is no criticism of either of the two parties which have been in control of the city of Nottingham. Indeed, it is precisely that problem that results in the involvement of the House and many other bodies in the silly numbers game of seeking to use new starts, and particularly new starts in the public sector, as a measure of whether an authority is good or bad.
We should consider the problem of what I might describe as political waste among local authorities in this

respect. In Nottingham, there is a 17·5 acre site on which 250 homes could be built. It has been lying idle for five years because the local Labour-controlled council decided that it was not prepared to allow private houses and private building on it. It wanted public sector housing.
The council compounds its financial problems. There are two major blocks of system-built homes. The council had an opportunity to conserve its capital, its plans and the two buildings, Balloon Woods and Basford. A city publication says:
Demolishing the Balloon Woods and the old Basford flats was budgeted in the sums of £558,419 and £1,072,700 respectively.
As several hon. Members have said, the local authority, awash with housing money, is spending that amount to demolish those sites, and has turned down offers from the private sector to pay £250,000 to the city, thereby saving £1,750,000 in a single stroke, and to build homes for sale on those two sites. However, for political reasons that is turned down.
There is the other side to the coin of not spending capital receipts too quickly. Here I regret that I have to differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle). The Nottingham local authority, when it embarked on voluntary house sales before the right to buy, decided that it wanted to be the building society. It was a deliberate act of the council. We never denied people the right to go to the building society, but there were benefits flowing to the city if it acted as a building society also. This spread over a greater number of years both the income in terms of interest benefit and the benefits from capital receipts.
The city has had the following benefits. The gross expenditure of the local authority is £130·5 million. The net rate levied is £9·2 million. As a result of the investment of capital receipts, the interest benefit flowing to the city is £10·5 million, over £1 million greater than the amount levied in rates. The present controlling Labour group would like to blow the capital receipts in a spending spree over two or three years. That would double the city rate without taking into account any other factor. The housing revenue account receives £8·2 million-worth of interest benefit in its total budget of £44·4 million. To every tenant in the city—approximately 47,000 homes are managed by the local authority in the city of Nottingham—this is worth £3·50 per week.
While I understand and sympathise with the pressure for more spending and for a greater percentage use of capital receipts, there is another side of the coin. The rates in Nottingham are half what they would otherwise be and the rents are £3·50 per week lower because of the retention of those capital receipts.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: It is my intention to sit down promptly at 6.40 pm. I therefore concede that there is not much time in which to develop an argument which would satisfy either me or the House. There is time only to pinpoint the nature of the problem and to state that 1 million houses are in a state of disrepair. Over 1 million houses are not up to modern standards of amenity provision to provide decent living conditions for families, and over 500,000 people live in overcrowded conditions.
Each local authority knows specifically, much better than the Government and the House do, the needs of its own people. That is the enormity of the problem and the


specific understanding, which is at the service of the House, of local authorities, who know their business best. They know the nature of their requirements for housing in four-bedroomed houses, maisonettes and bungalows, including adequate provision for old people and invalids, and on that knowledge the Government should place considerable reliance.
Because of the right to buy, capital receipts have been pouring into the coffers of local authorities, and, with accumulated reserves of over £5 billion, there is one simple question that we should ask. If it is easy to bring together materials and unemployed people in the construction industry to produce houses for people to live in, how, in terms of capital expenditure considerations at the national level, does that adversely affect the economy? It cannot do so. It enriches the economy. The potential for production arises from the health and proper housing of people.
As a conscientious man, the Minister will realise, I hope, that I have put forward the problem briefly and in a proper spirit. If he cannot show how the economy will be adversely affected by bringing men and materials together when there are the capital resources to do it, will he answer this question: if the restriction of the proportion of capital receipts is a matter for determination by the Government, how does he justify it?

Mr. Rooker: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might reply to the debate.
The Minister could have come to the debate today and said, "There are half a million families who have outside toilets. As a special concession to them, we shall give them inside toilets before the next general election." The Minister could have given a special concession to the half a million families who have no hot and cold running water systems. He could have promised them hot and cold running water before the next election. Instead of doing that, the Minister has come here to tough it out. That is basically the Government's position.
I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). They are the only two Conservative Members out of 74 who signed the early-day motion who have been in the Chamber today and risen to their feet. They have made it clear that they will not support the Government. We shall be watching what the other 72 hon. Members do at 7 pm. [Interruption.] Every hon. Member is accountable to his constituents. No one put a gun to the heads of the 74 Conservative Members to make them sign the early-day motion. They have all been to see the building employers. Some building employers have told me, "Our Member is doing what he can. He is going to see the Ministers. He has signed a motion in the House of Commons." But when those hon. Members are given the opportunity to vote with their feet in favour of the motion they signed, most of them are not taking that opportunity.

Mr. Den Dover: rose—

Mr. Rooker: I shall not give way.
In 1977 the Labour Government, with the approval of the Opposition, changed the arrangements for nationalised industry capital spending. Up to then we were counting as public expenditure the whole of capital investment in the

nationalised industries, including that part financed from internal resources. That was a crazy arrangement and out of line with the practice of other Governments in the European Community. The new arrangement has not been changed by the Conservative Government since they came to office. Why can we not do the same for local authorities? Why do we have to count as public expenditure all the capital expenditure, including that generated from within their own resources? Will the Minister see what can be done to bring local authorities into line as nearly as possible with the treatment of nationalised industries?
In my opening speech, when I referred to local authorities, I neglected to give a quotation from the London borough of Waltham Forest — not Labour-controlled. On 10 January 1985 the council passed the following resolution:
The Council condemns the Secretary of State for the Environment's proposal to restrict the spending of capital receipts which represents a further attack on local decision making. We support the Local Authority Association's opposition to this proposal, and request the three Members of Parliament representing constituencies of this borough to vote against the Order when it is presented to Parliament.
The local authority in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is asking him to vote against the order. In other words, the principle involved transcends some of the arguments of Conservative Members.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), towards the end of his speech, made many sensible points which would find favour with Labour Members, but the first part of his speech was a tirade of abuse against local authorities just because they were Labour-controlled. The fact that they might be doing something right seemed to be irrelevant for him.
I have particularly sought to highlight what Tory-controlled authorities are saying about the proposal. Far from weakening my case, it must strengthen it. We are dealing with an attack on local decision making. The money is there to be spent. It has been generated by a change of policy approved by this House since 1980. That means that many of the old arguments are no longer valid. Before 1980, for reasons that we all know, the capital receipts were not available on the necessary scale. I referred earlier to the Prime Minister's assurance that the money could be used to replace capital assets, in particular with regard to the elderly.
Employers have a vested interest in the question because of their businesses. This is a debate, not about public housing, but about the use of capital receipts by local authorities for public housing, voluntary housing and private housing. That is what the argument is about, despite the usual smokescreen from one or two hon. Members.
We have had a letter from the Building Employers Confederation telling us:
Total local authority capital spending in 1985–86 could fall to £3·8 million, a 28 per cent. reduction from this year's expected £5·1 billion. Such a massive reduction in workload would cause grave problems for the construction industry and could lead to the loss of more than 150,000 jobs.
That is what is said on behalf of people who are involved in building, refurbishing and improving housing in the private, public and voluntary sectors.
We have had a letter from the British Aggregate Construction Materials Industries organisation telling us:


despite the collective overspend by local authorities in 1983–84 and 1984–85, local capital spending in 1984–85 is less in cash than it was in 1979–80—representing a 40 per cent. real fall. If local authorities adhere to the Government's plans for £2·2 billion for capital spending in 1985–86, this would mean that local investment would be 60 per cent. down on the 1979–80 real level.
It is no good going back to what happened under previous Governments. Expenditure has been cut and cut again, even in relation to the levels inherited by the Government.
I mentioned earlier the survey by the Institute of Housing. Every sentence in the survey comes from a local authority. All the comments deal with the cut that we are discussing. Under the heading "Elderly/Disabled", the following sentences appear:
One elderly scheme cancelled for sheltered … 100 units cut to 31 for sheltered … Elderly programme deferred … No new elderly or disabled starts.
Under the heading "Modernisation/Rehabilitation/Capitalised Repairs", it says:
Adaptations for disabled deferred … No new improvement contracts … Fire prevention schemes for flats, water mains renewal, re-wiring, re-roofing postponed.
Under the heading "Defective Dwellings", it says:
Cannot meet legal requirements under Defects Act … 500 defective dwellings untouched … Cutback on asbestos removal.
Under the heading "Improvement Grants", it says:
4,000 on list, 4–5 years before process applications … 6,500 on list, none removed.
Under "Build for Sale/Low Cost Home Ownership Etc", it says:
Leasehold scheme for elderly cancelled.
I should like to know what the Minister thinks about that.
Under "Housing Association Funding", it says:
Stopped. Stopped new build 90 dwellings. Stopped. 2 projects postponed. Heavily affected.
Under "Slum Clearance" it says:
Deferred. Slum clearance affected.
Under "Mortgages" it says:
All but RTB mortgages stopped. Excluded from programme. Reduced. Loans for house purchase no longer available from council.
Those are sentences picked out at random from hundreds of sentences provided by the Institute of Housing as a result of its survey. They are directly related to the cut.
The Building Employers Confederation is in the numbers game, and I do not blame it for that. Of course, we are in the numbers game; we are talking about homes for people. The confederation has made it clear that there has been a disturbing shortfall of 100,000 new homes in each of the past seven years. The Minister mentioned completions; I have been quoting starts. I do not argue about that; we have to look at the different years. The Building Employers Confederation, in its latest note to Members of Parliament, said that in 1984 only 190,000 houses were completed, compared with an average of 304,000 per annum in the 1970s.
If the slum clearance programme and the new build programme are reduced, we demand an increase each year in the improvement and renovation schemes. We do not want a cut. I shall not reiterate my earlier arguments. It makes no sense to have the building programme and the slum clearance programme reduced, and now to have reductions in improvement grants, and we are storing up a crisis of massive proportions for our constituents. Ministers are not ignorant of that, and we are merely asking them to start facing it.

Mr. Gow: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the debate. Thirteen hon. Members have spoken and I should like to answer the points that they have raised. If, in the time available to me, I am unable to answer all of their questions, I shall be happy to write to them.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) raised a constituency matter. Arrangements have been made to monitor the houses above Cow Pasture mine. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has asked the limestone expert panel which advises on limestone matters for its view on the consultant's proposals for extending the scope of the present monitoring arrangements. The panel will visit the site tomorrow.
Subject to advice from the panel, my hon. Friend is ready to authorise the use of derelict land grant for the additional monitoring work. The Government have already provided £3·6 million for limestone investigations in the west midlands and for the development of methods of tackling the problem. For 1985–86 my hon. Friend has increased the allocation to £2·6 million—£600,000 more than for the previous year. I know how worried the hon. Lady is, and it goes without saying that I shall be pleased to discuss the matter further with her. Moreover, if she would like to bring representatives of her council to see my hon. Friend or me, of course we shall be glad to see her and them.
The financial consequences of spending the accumulated receipts of local authorities, which have resulted from the outstanding success of our policy of selling council houses, has been a continuing part of the debate. Local authorities' external debts total about £30 billion. If the £5 billion of accumulated receipts were spent, that external debt would be increased.
In a characteristically powerful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) considered this problem, as did some others.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: Address the Chair.

Mr. Gow: I am entitled to address my hon. Friends, and I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, were able to hear what I was saying.
If the Government are committed — and we most emphatically are—to reducing public sector borrowing, we cannot ignore the fact that a significant part of public sector borrowing lies with local authorities. The journey to diminished debt and to abate the evil of inflation cannot be carried through to success painlessly.
Earlier Governments have made exactly the same diagnosis — that we have too much debt. They have recognised that inflation is the parent of unemployment and a major source of social envy, malice and injustice. The difference between the Opposition Front Bench and those who sit on the Treasury Bench is that, although we have made the same diagnosis and started on the same path towards a policy of sound money and honest finance, when the going got tough Opposition Members abandoned the policy.
Characteristically, I was rebuked by the Opposition Front Bench because I quoted an excellent letter written on 15 December 1976 by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to Dr. Johannes Witteveen. The right hon.


Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was not alone in wanting to embark on the policy that we are now following. As I have been reminded of the compassion that Opposition Members claim is exclusive to them, I should like to remind them, although they will not like it, of what the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan). said—

Mr. Rooker: Put your finger down.

Mr. Gow: No, I shall not put my finger down. It needs to be wagged at the Opposition; besides which, it is my finger.
Addressing his comrades at the Labour party conference of 1976, the former Prime Minister said:
We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by boosting Government spending.
That is what the Opposition are asking us to do now. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
I tell you in all candour"—
[Interruption.] I should have thought that the Opposition would show a little more respect for the man who used to lead them. I am showing the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth respect. However much Opposition Members shout, I shall get this quotation out because it is important that we be reminded of truths. Some truths continue to be valid although they were uttered nine years ago.
The right hon. Gentleman said:
I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists and, in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step.
Opposition Members who argue, sometimes with the highest motives, that it would be right on grounds of compassion to increase public expenditure now would bring about the higher inflation and higher unemployment of which their former leader warned.
We know that genuine hardship still exists, but it will be relieved only if we lay a firm foundation for more jobs. I therefore ask the House to reject the motion and approve the amendment.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 314.

Division No. 134]
[7 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Paddy
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bruce, Malcolm


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchan, Norman


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Caborn, Richard


Barnett, Guy
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Ian


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Beggs, Roy
Canavan, Dennis


Beith, A. J.
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bell, Stuart
Cartwright, John


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Thomas


Bidwell, Sydney
Clay, Robert


Blair, Anthony
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Boyes, Roland
Cohen, Harry


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Coleman, Donald


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Conlan, Bernard





Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McGuire, Michael


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Corbett, Robin
McKelvey, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cowans, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McNamara, Kevin


Craigen, J. M.
McTaggart, Robert


Crowther, Stan
McWilliam, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Maginnis, Ken


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Maxton, John


Deakins, Eric
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dewar, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dobson, Frank
Michie, William


Douglas, Dick
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dover, Den
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dubs, Alfred
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eastham, Ken
Nellist, David


Edwards, Bob (Wh'mpt'n SE)
Nicholson, J.


Ellis, Raymond
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
O'Brien, William


Ewing, Harry
O'Neill, Martin


Fatchett, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Faulds, Andrew
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fisher, Mark
Park, George


Flannery, Martin
Parry, Robert


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Patchett, Terry


Forrester, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Pendry, Tom


Foster, Derek
Penhaligon, David


Foulkes, George
Pike, Peter


Fraser, j. (Norwood)
Prescott, John


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Radice, Giles


Freud, Clement
Randall, Stuart


Garrett, W. E.
Redmond, M.


George, Bruce
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Godman, Dr Norman
Richardson, Ms Jo


Gourlay, Harry
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rogers, Allan


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rooker, J. W.


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Haynes, Frank
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ryman, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Sedgemore, Brian


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Home Robertson, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Howells, Geraint
Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)


Hoyle, Douglas
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Soley, Clive


Janner, Hon Greville
Spearing, Nigel


John, Brynmor
Steel, Rt Hon David


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Stott, Roger


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Strang, Gavin


Kennedy, Charles
Straw, Jack


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Kirkwood, Archy
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Lamond, James
Tinn, James


Leadbitter, Ted
Torney, Tom


Leighton, Ronald
Wainwright, R.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Wallace, James


Litherland, Robert
Warded, Gareth (Gower)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wareing, Robert


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Welsh, Michael


Loyden, Edward
White, James


McCartney, Hugh
Wigley, Dafydd


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Williams, Rt Hon A.






Winnick, David



Woodall, Alec
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. Austin Mitchell and


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Sean Hughes.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Alexander, Richard
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fallon, Michael


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Farr, Sir John


Amess, David
Favell, Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Arnold, Tom
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Fletcher, Alexander


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Forth, Eric


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Marcus


Bellingham, Henry
Franks, Cecil


Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Roger


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Fry, Peter


Best, Keith
Galley, Roy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Blackburn, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gorst, John


Body, Richard
Gow, Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grist, Ian


Bright, Graham
Ground, Patrick


Brinton, Tim
Grylls, Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Browne, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruinvels, Peter
Hannam, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Harg reaves, Kenneth


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Harris, David


Budgen, Nick
Harvey, Robert


Bulmer, Esmond
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Butcher, John
Hawksley, Warren


Butterfill, John
Hayes, J.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayhoe, Barney


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hayward, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Heddle, John


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Henderson, Barry


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chope, Christopher
Hickmet, Richard


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hill, James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hordern, Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Michael


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cope, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Corrie, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Couchman, James
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Crouch, David
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunter, Andrew


Dorrell, Stephen
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Irving, Charles


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Jackson, Robert


Dunn, Robert
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Durant, Tony
Jessel, Toby


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Eggar, Tim
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Evennett, David
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael





Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Raffan, Keith


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Key, Robert
Renton, Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lang, Ian
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rost, Peter


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rowe, Andrew


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ryder, Richard


Lester, Jim
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lightbown, David
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lilley, Peter
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lord, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shersby, Michael


McCrindle, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacGregor, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Speed, Keith


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Speller, Tony


Maclean, David John
Spence, John


McQuarrie, Albert
Spencer, Derek


Major, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Malone, Gerald
Squire, Robin


Marlow, Antony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John


Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Maude, Hon Francis
Stern, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mellor, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stokes, John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moate, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Terlezki, Stefan


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Moore, John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Murphy, Christopher
Thornton, Malcolm


Neale, Gerrard
Thurnham, Peter


Needham, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nelson, Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Michael
Trippier, David


Newton, Tony
Trotter, Neville


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Norris, Steven
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Onslow, Cranley
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Waddington, David


Osborn, Sir John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ottaway, Richard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Walden, George


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Parris, Matthew
Wall, Sir Patrick


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Waller, Gary


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Ward, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Pawsey, James
Warren, Kenneth


Pollock, Alexander
Watson, John


Portillo, Michael
Watts, John


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Powell, William (Corby)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Powley, John
Wheeler, John


Price, Sir David
Whitney, Raymond


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wiggin, Jerry






Wilkinson, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wolfson, Mark



Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


Woodcock, Michael
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Carol Mather.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments).

The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 204.

Division No. 135]
[7.15 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Dorrell, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dunn, Robert


Amess, David
Durant, Tony


Ancram, Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Arnold, Tom
Eggar, Tim


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Evennett, David


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fallon, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Farr, Sir John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Favell, Anthony


Batiste, Spencer
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bellingham, Henry
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bendall, Vivian
Fletcher, Alexander


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Fookes, Miss Janet


Best, Keith
Forman, Nigel


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Forth, Eric


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Blackburn, John
Fox, Marcus


Body, Richard
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Peter
Fry, Peter


Bottomiey, Mrs Virginia
Galley, Roy


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodlad, Alastair


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brinton, Tim
Gow, Ian


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Greenway, Harry


Browne, John
Gregory, Conal


Bruinvels, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grist, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Ground, Patrick


Budgen, Nick
Grylls, Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Gummer, John Selwyn


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hannam, John


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Cash, William
Harris, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Harvey, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Chope, Christopher
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayes, J.


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayhoe, Barney


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayward, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Conway, Derek
Heddle, John


Coombs, Simon
Henderson, Barry


Cope, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Corrie, John
Hickmet, Richard


Couchman, James
Hill, James


Cranborne, Viscount
Hind, Kenneth


Crouch, David
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hordern, Peter





Howard, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parris, Matthew


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pollock, Alexander


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Irving, Charles
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert
Powley, John


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Price, Sir David


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Raffan, Keith


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Renton, Tim


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Key, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lamont, Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lang, Ian
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rost, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Rowe, Andrew


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ryder, Richard


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lightbown, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Luce, Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lyell, Nicholas
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Macfarlane, Neil
Speed, Keith


MacGregor, John
Speller, Tony


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Spence, John


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Spencer, Derek


Maclean, David John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


McQuarrie, Albert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, John
Squire, Robin


Malins, Humfrey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Malone, Gerald
Stanley, John


Marlow, Antony
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stern, Michael


Mates, Michael
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mellor, David
Stokes, John


Merchant, Piers
Stradling Thomas, J.


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Miscampbell, Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Terlezki, Stefan


Moate, Roger
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Moore, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thurnham, Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neale, Gerrard
Tracey, Richard


Needham, Richard
Trippier, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Tony
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Norris, Steven
Waddington, David


Onslow, Cranley
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Osborn, Sir John
Waldegrave, Hon William






Walden, George
Wiggin, Jerry


Wall, Sir Patrick
Wilkinson, John


Waller, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Ward, John
Wood, Timothy


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Woodcock, Michael


Warren, Kenneth
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Watson, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Watts, John



Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Mr. Robin Boscawen and


Wheeler, John
Mr. Carol Mather.


Whitney, Raymond



NOES


Ashdown, Paddy
Dubs, Alfred


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashton, Joe
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Eastham, Ken


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpfn SE)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Ellis, Raymond


Barnett, Guy
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Barron, Kevin
Ewing, Harry


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Fatchett, Derek


Beggs, Roy
Faulds, Andrew


Beith, A. J.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bell, Stuart
Fisher, Mark


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Flannery, Martin


Bermingham, Gerald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John


Blair, Anthony
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Foster, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Foulkes, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Freud, Clement


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Garrett, W. E.


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
George, Bruce


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Godman, Dr Norman


Bruce, Malcolm
Gould, Bryan


Buchan, Norman
Gourlay, Harry


Caborn, Richard
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Campbell, Ian
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Canavan, Dennis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Haynes, Frank


Cartwright, John
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Heffer, Eric S.


Clarke, Thomas
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clay, Robert
Home Robertson, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Howells, Geraint


Cohen, Harry
Hoyle, Douglas


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Concannon, Rt Hon J, D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Janner, Hon Greville


Corbett, Robin
John, Brynmor


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cowans, Harry
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kennedy, Charles


Craigen, J. M.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Crowther, Stan
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lamond, James


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Leadbitter, Ted


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Leighton, Ronald


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Dixon, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Douglas, Dick
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dover, Den
Loyden, Edward





McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


McGuire, Michael
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Rogers, Allan


McKelvey, William
Rooker, J. W.


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


McNamara, Kevin
Ryman, John


McTaggart, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Madden, Max
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maginnis, Ken
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Maynard, Miss Joan
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Meacher, Michael
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Soley, Clive


Michie, William
Spearing, Nigel


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Steel, Rt Hon David


Miller, DrM. S. (E Kilbride)
Stott, Roger


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Strang, Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Nicholson, J,
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tinn, James


O'Brien, William
Torney, Tom


O'Neill, Martin
Wainwright, R.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wallace, James


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Park, George
Wareing, Robert


Parry, Robert
Welsh, Michael


Patchett, Terry
White, James


Pavitt, Laurie
Wigley, Dafydd


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Penhaligon, David
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter
Woodall, Alec


Prescott, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Radice, Giles
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Randall, Stuart



Redmond, M.
Tellers for the Noes:


Rees, Rt Hon M, (Leeds S)
Mr. Austin Mitchell and


Richardson, Ms Jo
Mr. Sean Hughes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House notes the existence of local authority accumulated reserves of capital receipts of about £5 billion and the Secretary of State for the Environment's acceptance that these reserves belong to the local authorities; further notes that housing and infrastructure needs are reflected in the gross provision of over £4 billion for local authority capital spending in 1985–86; and welcomes the Government's determination to keep next year's local authority capital expenditure within the total provided in the Autumn Statement and approved by this House on 6th December 1984.

Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As 74 right hon. and hon. Members have signed a motion which is virtually identical to that which has just been defeated, is it consistent with being an hon. Member of the House that only the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) has voted for what he signed?

Mr. Speaker: I am in no way responsible for what hon. Members sign or for what they do in the Division Lobbies.

Representation of the People Bill

As amended, considered.

New Clause 6

VOTING AT SPECIAL POLLING STATIONS IN NORTHERN IRELAND

'(1) Schedule [Special polling stations in Northern Ireland] to this Act makes provision for those—

(a) whose circumstances on the date of the poll at a particular parliamentary election in Northern Ireland will be or are likely to be such that they cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person as electors at the polling stations allotted or likely to be allotted to them under the parliamentary elections rules, but
(b) who on that date will be in Northern Ireland.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument bring that Schedule into force if he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent serious abuse of the system of voting by post in the case of ballot papers for elections in Northern Ireland sent to addresses there in pursuance of applications granted under section 7(1) of this Act.
(3) That Schedule shall cease to be in force if the Secretary of State so provides by order made by statutory instrument (without prejudice to his power to make a further order under subsection (2) above), and an order under this subsection may include such transitional provisions as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient.
(4) No order under this section shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by each House of Parliament.
(5) While that Schedule is in force, section 7(5) of this Act shall have effect as if it required a person applying under section 7(1) of this Act to vote by post at a particular parliamentary election in Northern Ireland to provide an address in Great Britain as the address to which his ballot paper is to be sent.'—[Mr. Mellor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment (a), in subsection (2) after 'instrument', insert
'not later than three years after the commencement of this Act.'.
Government amendments Nos. 16 to 44, 54 to 59, 61 to 63 and 66 to 71.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise with you a matter that has not been covered in the selection that is being debated tonight? I refer particularly to a debate on an amendment on the multiple registrations of electors that was withdrawn in Committee on the basis that we should return to it on Report. That point has been covered by a number of new clauses, notably new clause 1 which stands in the name of the Opposition. That matter has caused concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. There was a defect in the amendment that was tabled in Committee and that was why we sought to withdraw it and to return to it on Report. Now that we do not have that opportunity we are in difficulty.

Mr. Speaker: The mere fact that a new clause has been withdrawn in Committee on the Floor of the House does not entitle it automatically to be selected on Report. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the general principle is that if there has been a debate on an identical new clause, it is highly unlikely to be selected again.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the course of consideration of the new clause and amendments that we are about to discuss I hope that you will consider the point raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). No one assumed that that subject would automatically be selected for debate, but there was a general feeling that an opportunity should be given for the issue to be brought back, particularly as there was agreement on both sides of the House that the Government should look again at the matter. The unusual feature of the debate was that there were representations from the Opposition Front Bench, from this Bench, from the hon. Member for Caernarfon and from Government Back Benchers because of dissatisfaction that the Government had failed to move on that point. The desire to return to it on Report was far more widely shared than on any other issue that has come up under the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I have considered the matter carefully. A virtually identical amendment was debated for about an hour in Committee. The Government gave no guarantees, and I do not think that I can change the selection.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make two submissions in relation to this group? I have no doubt that you would accept that amendment (a), standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself, raises a major matter of principle and that in due course we would wish that to be put to the House separately so that we, and possibly other hon. Members, can go on record in support of it.
The second submission is by way of a complaint that amendments have been grouped together which by no stretch of the imagination relate to the same subject. May I give as examples amendments Nos. 18, 21 and 25? Some of them may be drafting amendments, but on the most generous construction they cannot be regarded as hanging together with the subject matter of new clause 6. I make this submission because it is obviously in the interests of the House that vigilance should be exercised in ensuring that amendments relating to different matters are not grouped together so as to deprive the House of the opportunity of considering them separately.

Mr. Speaker: I give the right hon. Member a guarantee that there will be a separate Division on amendment (a) if he so wishes.
The right hon. Member knows that on the grouping of the Government amendments I am guided by the Government. As he has raised the matter, I shall look at it again to see whether there is any way in which I can possibly help him.

Mr. Mellor: Whether special rules should apply to Northern Ireland has been a matter of intense discussion during the course of deliberations on the Bill. In Committee it was determined that changes would be made that left the provisions on the face of the Bill common to Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. But it was made clear that it was the Government's wish to make proposals that allowed a change to be made if evidence arose subsequently that gave rise to the suspicion that malpractice on a large scale was likely, which was the reason for the difference in the first place.
7.30 pm
All the matters contained in that grouping go to the issue of those arrangements and the bringing in of new


machinery. The amendment by which, very properly, the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) sets great store lays down a time limit on that. I believe that it would be wholly artificial to consider a time limit on proposals separately from the proposals themselves. In previous discussions, the proposals have always been regarded as a package because they replace matters which previously we agreed to remove from the face of the Bill.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not often that the Minister fails to take a point. It is probably my fault if he has failed to do so in this case.
I was not complaining that amendment (a) should be debated in the context of new clause 6. I do not think that it could otherwise have been debated properly. I am inviting the Minister to give his attention to the fact that a number of amendments, not all of a drafting character, which are grouped together in the block comprising amendments Nos. 16 to 24 will be found on examination not to be consequential upon or coherent with the major proposal enshrined in the new clause and our proposed amendment to it.
In view of what you said, Mr. Speaker, I hope that it will be sufficient and avoid taking up more of the time of the House if the Minister ensures that the greatest severity is used in future in distinguishing amendments which go to different subjects.

Mr. Mellor: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. In our consideration, what weighed heavily with us was that these arrangements emerged as a result of a growing consensus, and it had not been anticipated that any difficulties would be encountered. Perhaps we took a more generous view of the grouping than might otherwise have been the case.
If the right hon. Gentleman will accept this grouping on this occasion, I shall have regard to what he has said on future occasions.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has to do with the Report stages of Bills in general.
I have noticed in recent years — and it goes back before your time—that amendments selected for Report seem to cover large areas that have already been discussed fully in Committee. Going back several years, it used to be the accepted rule that if an amendment had been reasonably discussed in Committee, it was not allowed to be rediscussed—except very exceptionally—on Report.
It is the change in this form of selection so that we are now getting debates in Committee repeated on Report that is increasing the number of amendments selected and, therefore, the time that the House is given to discuss Bills on Report.
We are not discussing new matters. We are regurgitating what has been discussed already. I should appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, if you would look at that in future. It is a matter for you, and I am only suggesting a point of view that I have and that other hon. Members may have. We are extending Report stages too widely.

Mr. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that in considering that matter you will not only assess carefully whether the description given is a true one of the trend over the years—I suggest that it is not—but that you will also bear in mind, especially in respect of

Bills which are not considered in Committee on the Floor of the House, that the position must be safeguarded of hon. Members who have matters to raise which they were not able to raise because they were not members of the Committee.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis) is very experienced in these matters and should have no criticism tonight that amendments have been too generously selected by me. That is just the point made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), because in his view I have not been generous enough. Hon. Members w ill see from my provisional selection that all the amendments except three, and amendment (a), are Government amendments.

Mr. Mellor: This large group of amendments makes a number of inter-related changes to the absent voting provisions. It follows clear indications of the Government's view that I sought to give in Committee when, as hon. Gentlement representing Ulster constituencies know, the Government made many major concessions about any differences in the exercise of absent voting between Ulster and the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government went even to the point of restricting the entitlements of voters in Great Britain to have postal ballot papers sent out of the jurisdiction in order that common rules could apply. Such an entitlement would have been impossible in Northern Ireland because of the special position of ballot papers sent to the Republic of Ireland.
Effectively, we are able to say now that the absent voting arrangements for Northern Ireland are the same as those for Great Britain. That represents a major change from the Bill as it was introduced. I welcome it, Mr. Walker, because that was agreed to in the spirit of sensible discussion and compromise which rightly informs all our deliberations. It should inform a measure that changes the basic rules of elections which should, if possible, he the subject of the very minimum of partisan argument.
As I sought to make clear in Committee, there is a genuine fear on the part of my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office that electoral malpractice might arise on such a scale that the House could with hindsight have been considered imprudent to have made the changes in Committee that it did and that it would be appropriate to have a fallback position which could be introduced speedily, subject to proper consultations and the will of the House, in order that the threat of malpractice on a large scale might be acted upon readily.
It is that which underpins most of the changes of substance contained in this group of amendments, and I shall go through them in the hope that, having set the overall framework and reminded the House of the exchanges which led up to them, I can throw some light on the details. Mr. Walker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would refer to me by my official title. We are not in Committee now. We are on Report.

Mr. Mellor: I had become aware of that as you rose, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: It is better than "Mr. President."

Mr. Mellor: It is better. I can think of all kinds of titles that would be inappropriate. However, if that is the worst mistake that I make this evening, I shall be well pleased with myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I deal first with postal ballot papers outside the United Kingdom, which are the subject of amendments Nos. 18, 20, 28 and 44. These amendments prevent postal voters, including postal proxies, from having their ballot papers sent outside the United Kingdom. In Committee, several right hon. and hon. Members voiced their concern about the provisions of the Bill which would have allowed postal ballot papers from Great Britain to be sent to addresses outside the United Kingdom. I undertook to raise the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and that I have done. It remains our view that all absent voters, whether inside or outside the United Kingdom, should have the choice of postal or proxy voting. But we bow to the general view of the Committee, and under these amendments an elector may vote by post only if the address to which he applies for the ballot paper to be sent is within the United Kingdom. Overseas electors and other absent voters who are outside the United Kingdom during the election period have to vote by proxy. I know that that change will be widely welcomed by members of all parties.
I turn to what has become the important issue of uniformity within the United Kingdom. This is covered by amendments Nos. 16, 19, 21 to 26, 29 to 43 and 67 to 71. Most of these amendments have a somewhat technical appearance, but their main purpose is to give Northern Ireland electors the same right to apply to vote by post or proxy at a particular election as electors in Great Britain, if they cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at their allotted polling station.
As I said in Committee, this change is subject to a reserve power, to which I shall turn in a moment. I suspect that it will be the most fully considered aspect of the amendments during the debate. We have also taken the opportunity to make some further improvements to the original Bill, which I hope to weave into the main thread to persuade the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) that the decision to group the amendments together was not as unfortunate as he initially thought it to be.
I shall now deal with postal proxies. We made some changes to the right of a proxy to vote by post. The Bill as introduced allowed proxies to vote by post for an indefinite period only if they were themselves entitled to an absent vote for an indefinite period, for example on the grounds of physical incapacity. In Great Britain, proxies could apply to vote by post at a particular election if they could not reasonably be expected to vote at their elector's allotted polling station, and in Northern Ireland if their address was in a different district ward from their elector's qualifying address. The amendments allow proxies throughout the United Kingdom to apply for a postal vote if they cannot reasonably be expected to vote at the polling station. That is the fulfilment of a commitment to the right hon. Gentleman. He asked for something less, but we have managed to find arrangements to make the rules the same in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
In addition, the amendments restore the right, which proxies have under existing law, to vote by post for an indefinite period if they live in an area different from the elector's qualifying address. Service voters and others sometimes have difficulty in appointing a proxy in their

own constituency, and it is all the more important not to create unnecessary difficulties for proxies if service voters and overseas electors are not to vote from abroad by post. "The same area" has, in this context, the same meaning as it has at present, with the exception that in Greater London and the metropolitan counties parliamentary constituencies are to be used as the basis for determining whether the proxy's address is in the same area as the elector's address. That is because electoral divisions will cease to exist in Greater London and the metropolitan counties if the Local Government Bill is passed. In the metropolitan counties, parliamentary constituencies are bigger than electoral divisions, and in Greater London they are the same size.
I now turn to a further refinement. Some of the amendments clarify the right of an absent voter, including a proxy, who is on the permanent list to have a ballot paper sent to a different address for a particular election only. It may happen that a person who is entitled to be sent a postal ballot paper for an indefinite period is away from home at a particular election—for example, he may be on holiday. The amendments make it clear that he may apply for a ballot paper to be sent to a different address, or to vote by proxy at a particular election without prejudice to his right to be sent a ballot paper to his usual address at subsequent elections.
That may sound a small point, but it is part of our commitment in the Bill, not only to address the larger issues but to make improvements and refinements of detail, which will bring clarity and sense to some of the smaller areas of our electoral law. Amendments Nos. 17 and 27 are purely minor drafting amendments.
I now turn to the central matters of the debate, and first to applications in person. Amendment No. 66 is the first of the reserve powers, which I mentioned at the outset. The representation of the people regulations must be drawn up after the Bill has been passed to allow some of the measures on the statute to be given a proper light. The regulations will flesh out those provisions and make them workable.
7.45 pm
The amendment allows the representation of the people regulations to include provisions requiring electors, who apply to vote by post or proxy at a particular election because they cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at their allotted polling station, to apply in person with proof of identification. I gave notice in Committee of the Government's intention to move this amendment. Effectively, it is a quid pro quo for the major concessions that the Government made by removing from the Bill the absent voting restrictions on Northern Ireland. In the first instance, we do not propose to exercise the power in any part of the United Kingdom. The power is exercisable in many parts of the United Kingdom and is not a specific arrangement for Northern Ireland. That makes it marginally more palatable to right hon. and hon. Members from Ulster.
However, it has been suggested that clause 7 would make it easy for a person who was intent on fraud to submit an absent voting application in an elector's name and, in effect, to steal the elector's vote by having the ballot paper sent to a distant address where it could not be traced. The amendment confers a reserve power to require applications


to be made in person with proof of identity, should vote stealing in clause 7 become a serious problem in any part of the United Kingdom.
New clause 6, amendments Nos. 54 to 59, 61, 62 and the new schedule, which is amendment No. 63, give the Secretary of State—in practice it will be the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but as in all statutes "Secretary of State" is undefined — the power to make an order entitling Northern Ireland electors who would otherwise vote by post under clause 7 to vote in person in special polling stations throughout Northern Ireland, if they are in Northern Ireland on polling day. Unlike the earlier amendment, this applies specifically to Northern Ireland. The power may be exercised only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is necessary to exercise it to prevent serious abuse of postal voting. The rules for the conduct of the poll at the special polling stations are set out in the new schedule. So long as the schedule is in operation, Northern Ireland electors may not apply to have a postal ballot paper sent to an address in Northern Ireland at a particular election. The right hon. Member for South Down has put down an amendment under which the power to introduce these amendments would lapse three years after the commencement—by which I assume he means the passage—of the Bill.
New clause 6 contains the power that enables the Secretary of State to bring the new arrangements into force. As I have indicated, the power may be exercised only by order subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. It may also be exercised only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is necessary to do so to prevent serious abuse of postal voting in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State undertakes to consult the Northern Ireland parties before any order is laid before Parliament under this provision. Perhaps I could emphasise that it may be necessary to bring in the safeguards on the basis of an assessment of the likelihood of substantial abuse without waiting for a bad experience at an election. Subsection (3) enables the Secretary of State to make a further order restoring the full rights to vote by post given by clause 7 and, indeed, to make a subsequent order or orders to bring the schedule back into operation. However, it is not envisaged that these powers would he exercised at frequent intervals. Obviously, I hope that it will not be necessary to exercise them.
The order-making power does not affect the rights of those who apply to vote by post or proxy for an indefinite period under clause 6, for example on grounds of physical incapacity or the general nature of their occupation, service or employment. Nor — I stress this — does it affect the right of an elector to apply to vote by proxy at a particular election under clause 7, or to vote by post, if the address provided is an address in Great Britain. The only absent voters potentially affected by the implementation of the arrangements are those who have been brought into the absent voting arrangement by the new provisions. They are those who cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at their allotted polling stations, and who would otherwise apply to have a postal ballot paper sent to an address in Northern Ireland. The Government are thinking mainly of those who have moved house since the qualifying date or who are on holiday in another Northern Ireland constituency. Instead of voting by post, the schedule enables them to vote in person at a special polling station in the constituency where they will be on polling day.
The arrangements for the designation of special polling places, the conduct of the poll at special polling stations and the proceedings at the close of poll are set out in the new schedule. We have resisted the perhaps tempting possibility of leaving the detailed arrangements to regulations. Although the schedule is long, complex and technical, much of the content is familiar because the draftsman has applied, with modifications, the provisions for the conduct of the poll in the parliamentary elections rules in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 — the so-called "Ballot Act rules" which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) sought to raise in a different context at an earlier stage. I hope that that, at least, commends itself to the right hon. Member for South Down in that we have not taken what might on the face of it seem the easier course of waiting for regulations, but have sought to put these matters on the face of the Bill, albeit in a schedule.
The new arrangements, if introduced, would be facilitated by the particular way in which elections are organised in Northern Ireland. In Great Britain, the conduct of parliamentary elections is the responsibility of an officer appointed by a local authority which is wholly or partly contained in the parliamentary constituency. In Northern Ireland, as hon. Members from there know all too well, responsibility for the conduct of elections in each constituency, and indeed for the registration of electors throughout the Province, is in the hands of a chief electoral officer appointed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He would arrange for each special polling staion to be supplied with ballot papers from other constituencies in Northern Ireland and for the ballot papers to be sorted and sent on to be counted under his supervision at the close of poll. That is essentially what the schedule requires him to do.
If a Northern Ireland elector cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at his allotted polling station, paragraph 1 of the schedule gives him the right to apply to the chief electoral officer to vote in person at a special polling station. The provision of special polling stations and the designation of the special polling places in which they are situated is a matter for the chief electoral officer, as is the designation of polling places under the present law. Public notice is given of the special polling places designated under subparagraph (5). The number of polling stations provided will depend on the number of electors who apply under the new arrangements.
Instead of providing an address in Northern Ireland to which a postal ballot paper is to be sent, the applicant provides the address at which he will himself be on polling day. If the application is successful, the chief electoral officer sends the elector a notice telling him where he can vote in person at a special polling station. The elector than votes at the special polling station in the usual way, producing the identification required by the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985.
Most of the schedule from paragraph 2 onwards is needed to ensure that the proceedings at the special polling station are similar to the proceedings which apply at ordinary polling stations under the elections rules. An important difference is that instead of the polling agents appointed by the candidates to detect personation the chief electoral officer has power under paragraph 5 to appoint what we have called "observers" who under paragraph 10 have all the powers and duties of polling agents, so in fact they are more than mere observers. It would plainly be


impractical to allow each candidate in each constituency at a parliamentary general election in Northern Ireland to appoint polling agents to attend at each polling station. The schedule allows the chief electoral officer, after consultation with the political parties, to appoint a reasonable number of observers for each special polling station.
At the close of poll the ballot boxes are sealed up and the other documents put in separate packets in the usual way. They are then taken to the chief electoral officer, who in the presence of the candidates sorts the ballot papers and other documents into separate packets for each constituency, verifying the ballot paper account before he does so to make sure that no ballot papers have gone astray. That is in paragraph 6 of the schedule. The ballot papers are then sent on to the places where the votes are being counted for each constituency. The returning officer conducts a further verification of the ballot papers that he receives from the chief electoral officer to make sure that all is still in order. The ballot papers from the special polling stations are then mixed with the postal ballot papers and the ballot papers from polling stations in the constituency. From that point on, the election proceeds in its usual way.
I have gone through the provisions with some care but without, I hope, taking excessive time. As I have said—it bears repeating—it is greatly to be hoped that those powers never have to be used. The purpose of the arrangements is to put the procedures for absent voting in Northern Ireland on the same footing as in Great Britain and this is a fallback position in the event of a threat of serious electoral malpractice emerging.
In conclusion, I hope that the House will feel that in the amendment we have responded genuinely and fullheartedly to the debate in Committee and have done our best to meet the points raised by Members in all parts of the House on Second Reading and subsequently. I shall, of course, listen with great care to what the right hon. Member for South Down says about his amendment. For our part, the Government see no reason why the power to introduce the new schedule should lapse after three years. The new clause makes it clear that the power can be exercised only in specific circumstances, which I have carefully tried to set out, and the Secretary of State would clearly have to account to the House through the procedures laid down as to why he was satisfied that the power should be exercised. Indeed, he has undertaken to go into the matter with the parties beforehand so that the arguments can be considered before it reaches the Floor of the House. As for the detailed provisions, the schedule is before the House and now is the time to debate it. I do not wish to anticipate what the right hon. Member for South Down has to say.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My hon. Friends and I are not at all disposed to take back any expressions of satisfaction that have fallen from us during earlier proceedings on the Bill at seeing Northern Ireland and its citizens placed on the same footing as their fellow citizens in the rest of the kingdom. We acknowledge that the Home Office and Ministers in charge of the Bill have been open-minded in that respect, but it is only fair to acknowledge the support that we have had from the Opposition from the very first publication of any suggestion of differentiation. My only

cavil at the Minister's words of introduction concerns his use of the word "concessions". We do not regard it as a concession that the people of Northern Ireland should be treated on the same basis as those of the rest of the United Kingdom, and we regard it as an outrage to be defended against and avoided if any proposal for differentiation is suggested or included in legislation, as would be the situation under the Bill without the new clause and schedule.
This day will be remembered in the annals of constitutional history and future students will find in their textbooks reference to this day's business and to this debate, because a most important constitutional innovation is being made by the new clause and the schedule. My hon. Friends and I strenuously object to it and hope that we shall receive widespread support from the House because what is proposed is essentially a derogation of the rights and powers of this House.
The new clause represents a power of suspension—a power to suspend what is in an Act of Parliament by means of an Order in Council. It enables a Minister, by making an order and passing it through the House, to suspend the operation of part of an Act of Parliament. That is a most remarkable innovation and one which will attract the attention not just of the present Government in subsequent years but of their successors. It is a Government benefit clause, enabling a Government to write into a Bill a clause which provides, in effect, that if they turn out to have made a mistake and the legislation is not working they can make an order and alter what Parliament has passed.

Mr. Kaufman: Would the right hon. Gentleman regard that as research on a legislative embryo?

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman tempts me into a contemporary subject of debate. It certainly means that the legislation is declared to be tentative and I question the right of any Government presenting legislation to the House to treat it in that way and to ask that certain provisions be specifically subject to suspension at the will of an Administration acting by Order in Council.
8 pm
This House has always been jealous of the suspensory power. We have always maintained that matters which are regulated by legislation must be dealt with by legislation if those provisions are to be changed. If this Order in Council is made, rights and opportunities of voting which have been conferred by an Act of Parliament will be withdrawn by subordinate legislation. That is a constitutional innovation which should be marked by the House, and it should be resented—and not only by hon. Members on one side — because it runs counter to the powers and traditions of the House in legislation and evokes echoes of the suspensory power which the Crown sought to exercise centuries ago, only to learn better when it made the attempt.
We are told that the purpose of this suspensory power will be to avoid an apprehended serious abuse of the system of voting. I shall explain to the Minister exactly why that motive is irrational in this context, and in doing so I am not blaming him or the Home Office for having cooked up this suggestion. I do not believe that a Department with the experience and outlook of the Home Office would want to write this sort of stuff into its legislation.
The Minister was candid and said that it was part of a deal with the Northern Ireland Office. My hon. Friends


and I do not believe that any deal is required in respect of Northern Ireland for what, in any case, is its right as part of the United Kingdom. That is not a privilege for which we should be called on to pay in the form of constitutional innovations, even if what is proposed is — I shall argue that it is not — well conceived for the purpose aimed at and practicable in its execution.
The notion is, and must be, that if postal ballot papers are sent to addresses in Northern Ireland outside the constituency to which they relate, the Provisional IRA, I assume—or perhaps the INLA —will organise a system of dispatch riders who will travel through the length and breadth of Northern Ireland calling at all the addresses on the postal voting list and counting up the ballot papers.
I assure the Minister — if it would accept my assurance, I would assure the Northern Ireland Office—that this is a chimera. The notion of any such process taking place is an absurdity. If the Government are looking for circumstances—it is not our object to bring them to their attention — in which postal votes could be abused, let them look through the cases, which they do not propose to suspend, where ballot papers are sent inside the constituency and where, therefore, those who aim at electoral malpractice will have the matter, so to speak, under their control and in their towns and villages, wherever they live and wherever they may be able to carry out their malpractices.
The picture, the cartoon, which is presumed by the provisions of the schedule is wholly unreal and irrational and it leaves undisturbed the only marginal circumstances in which it is conceivable that postal voting could be used for the purposes of electoral malpractices. But it is worse than that. The practicability of the whole show is open to serious doubt.
I believe that there was a stage in the gestation of these proposals when the idea was that in each constituency there would be one special polling station. I can understand that that was laughed out of court. I have a constituency of 600 square miles with two big mountain ranges in the middle. The notion that any one special polling station could, within screaming distance, serve the purposes of a person who was temporarily staying in any part of my constituency — unless he happened to be on the top of Slieve Croob—is unrealistic.
Thus, the schedule leaves the number of special polling stations undetermined. The Minister was candid enough to say who will determine it. It will not be determined by orders which, even in the negative form, could be brought before the House. It will be determined by the very person who has a vested interest in minimising the trouble to which the arrangements put him — namely, the chief electoral officer. I make no criticism of any individual, but in the nature of the matter his interests are not the same as those of the electors. Yet he will decide whether in my constituency of South Down there shall be three, six or 12 special polling stations.
I do not know which of those alternatives the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), the Under-Secretary, would be inclined to accept. I mention his constituency because it must be difficult for him — having a constituency similar to my former constituency, across which he can walk in perhaps 25 minutes in any direction—to conceive a constituency of 600 square miles with enormous geographical features interrupting communication.
Even in present circumstances — with, in my constituency, 80 polling stations — we receive well-founded complaints in some parts of my constituency about the distance that people have to travel to get to the nearest polling station which is allotted to them. That a fraction of that number of polling stations could be anything but a crying injustice to the electors, and treated by them as an insult, is clear. As an insult they will treat it. They will say, "You have allowed me to vote in person. Thank you very much. But I am staying in such-and-such a place and you have told me that I am to vote 20 miles away. What sort of an opportunity to vote is that intended to be?" In many cases we are dealing not with 20 miles down a motorway but with 20 miles of rough country and cross-country travel, often by people who do not themselves possess the means of transport.
I ask the Minister, who has been open-minded about this, to accept — I am putting it on the record in the hope that the House will support our protest — that this notion of special polling stations, unless there are to be almost as many special polling stations as there are allotted polling stations, is not a starter and will cause vast irritation, disappointment and annoyance, and will be regarded as a mockery.
I want the Minister to envisage what will be the situation in these special polling stations. There is the presiding officer. He is in a different situation from a presiding officer in an allotted polling station. He has anything up to 16 sets of ballot papers; I hope that he will succeed in ringing the changes on them accurately. I say anything up to 16, but the Minister may say that there will be a computerised system which will ensure that he will be sent only the ballot papers for those particular constituencies from which electors are resident in that constituency where the polling station—[Interruption.]
I notice that on the Government Benches there is now taking place a conference between the Minister and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) which possibly calls for a suspension, if not of the sitting, at any rate of the flow of my argument, as I am anxious to bring the considerations that I am putting forward to the attention of the Minister. I shall continue, therefore, when he has fixed up for the hon. Member for Antrim, North to find his place in the debate.
I want the Minister to envisage the situation of the presiding officer. He has certain duties under the law before he holds out a ballot paper. In an ordinary polling station, his duty would be to satisfy himself that the person to whom he hands the ballot paper is the person who appears in the register of electors.
We had the misfortune earlier to pass a piece of legislation, which will be much regretted, which enforces in Northern Ireland a procedure of self-identification which will take place in those circumstances. The new schedule states in part III, paragraph 11:
References to the register of parliamentary electors for an election shall be read as references to the special polling list for that election.
"Ah, you have spotted it," says the Minister, "All that the presiding officer has to do is to thumb his way through the sheets which he has received from the chief electoral officer and say, 'Who are you, my man?' The elector will say, 'I have a permit to vote. I am on the list of those allowed to vote at a special polling station. My electoral number is 2056'." He will do that in accordance with paragraph 4 of the schedule, if I am not mistaken.
The Minister is purporting to enact something which will meet the danger of electoral abuse. I want him to consider the difference between that action in a special polling station and what takes place in an ordinary polling station. In an ordinary polling station, the elector presents himself, the presiding officer flicks through the register and there is the entry to which the person asking for the ballot paper purports to correspond.
In doing that, the presiding officer places himself in a strong position to form a view on whether personation is taking place. He and the polling agents in that polling station know that part of the ward very well. The presiding officer has probably lived near there all his life. Therefore, the announcement that the elector lives at No. 28 Ballynamaghery road, Castlewellan, means something to everyone who is in that polling station. The same would not be the case in a special polling station in East Londonderry, for example, if an elector made the assertion, "I am No. 2045. You will find my name on that list and that is me."
If we are still jealous, as we were a few months ago, of preventing personation, let me tell the Minister that he is creating a new type of opportunity for personation unless he takes an alternative course. I have no doubt that the alternative was canvassed, only to be dismissed as impracticable. The alternative is that the presiding officer should have copies of the registers. Alas, my hon. Friends and I would have suggested that but for its total impracticability. The electoral registers for my constituency stand about 2 ft high. There would consequently be an Egyptian pyramid of registers which would be in a special polling station if we were to enable the presiding officer to have the chance, which other presiding officers have, of verifying on the register the identity of a person to whom he hands a ballot paper.
It is wrong for the Government to do in this way what they want to do. If at any time they wanted to withdraw the voting rights of people in Northern Ireland there is only one proper way to do it — by legislation, the way in which voting rights are being conferred in this Bill.
Even there we have sought, in the spirit which the Minister was describing, to meet the Government by saying to the Minister, "Your friends in the Northern Ireland Office are a bit hysterical about electoral malpractice. In that case we will allow this to be put to the test. We are so convinced about the advice which we are giving you that we are not afraid. Let this run to include the next general election. If you do not think that three years are adequate for that purpose, substitute another wording, but do not write permanently into the law of the country a suspensory power for withdrawing rights which have been conferred by legislation."
That is the first plea which we make to the House and to the Government. If the deal is so compelling upon the Government, let them make it an experimental option which can be tested against experience and practice. If we are wrong, we shall be proved to be wrong and the Government will then have firm ground under their feet for amending legislation, if that is necessary.
We also contend that the method proposed in the schedule is inherently impractical in the real circumstances of Northern Ireland. It will be regarded by the electors concerned not as the granting of a facility but as a

withdrawal of a facility. It will be regarded as a means of pretending to give a facility which they will not have a practicable opportunity to exercise.
On top of all that, rather than remove the theoretical and abstract possibility—it is no more than that—that postal ballot papers sent outside a constituency could be used by an organisation within that constituency for electoral malpractice, it widens the opportunities available to voters for personation.
8.15 pm
The Minister has given a lot of time and thought to the Bill. He has shown himself alive to the situation as hon. Members representing Northern Ireland seats have described it to him. We ask him to take what has been said this evening as meant not to interfere with the purpose that has been achieved of putting Northern Ireland in the same position as the rest of the United Kingdom, but to take it for what it is, an attempt to avoid the Government unconstitutionally putting an absurdity upon the statute book.
There will be opportunity in the subsequent stages of the Bill, if our arguments carry weight with the Government and with the House, for this suspensory power to be limited. The Minister may well say, "I have gone to all this trouble to excogitate a suspensory power in all this detail. I went into detail specially for your sakes so that it should not be in orders. Now you want me to scrap it." We are so modest that we are not even asking him to scrap it. We are asking him to treat it as experimental, which it should be. That is the purpose of amendment (a) which will be moved in due course on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself.

Rev. Ian Paisley: At an earlier stage, when we were considering the position of Northern Ireland under the Bill, the Minister gave great encouragement to us all and showed that he was aware of the case made to him by hon. Members on both sides of the House. At that time due credit and the necessary praise were given to him, but we also gave him warning that when he presented the appropriate amendment we would reserve the right to deal with it as we saw it in relation to our constituents.
I am amazed to learn that responsibility for getting the amendment on to the Amendment Paper really rests with the Northern Ireland Office. As a representative of Northern Ireland, I must go beyond the Northern Ireland Office. I deplore the action of the chief electoral officer of Northern Ireland, who seems to be in a position to dictate to the Northern Ireland Office and now to the House. I do not think that any electoral officer, or the chief electoral officer, of Northern Ireland has any right, for his own convenience and desire, to do away with the basic elementary rights of the citizens of one part of the United Kingdom.
I must put on record the fact that I deprecate the representations made to the Northern Ireland Office by the chief electoral officer and the fact that the Northern Ireland Office, instead of considering those representations, weighing them properly in the balance, putting them under close scrutiny and consulting the elected representatives of Northern Ireland about them, proceeded to do the deal that we have heard about. I in no way blame the Minister who is presenting the Bill. I lay the blame on the Northern Ireland Office and on the chief electoral officer, who is the


parent of this unwanted embryo. This will bring much cause for alarm and actual alarm to the people of Northern Ireland.
It would appear that the House puts the citizens of Northern Ireland on a par with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, the Government propose that part of the Bill, when enacted, should be suspended, and suspended when the Minister thinks that it should be. When will the Minister think that it should be suspended? Whose advice will he take? Will he take the advice of the chief electoral officer? The person who sponsored the schedule will justify himself by saying to the Minister, "It is about time that the schedule was put into operation."
I recognise the force of amendment (a), and I think that it offers a solution. The Government will be able to say, "Let us put this matter to the test. Let us have an election in Northern Ireland that is conducted in the same way as elections in the rest of the United Kingdom. If we find that the fears of the chief electoral officer and the Northern Ireland Office are realised, we shall consider the matter." To do that without any experience would suggest that the Northern Ireland Office is being led by the nose by the chief electoral officer and that pressure has been put on the Minister so to amend the Bill.
The Minister should meet us on the sensible amendment that has been tabled to the new clause by saying that he is prepared to let us have the experience for which we have called. I can see far greater difficulties in Northern Ireland with people voting in their own areas than in the circumstances that have been the cause of the schedule.
It is proposed that we should have special polling stations. I do not know what our elections will be like. A special document will have to be presented before someone in Northern Ireland can be given a vote, and now we are to have special polling stations. As the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said, there is enough trouble with polling stations in Northern Ireland in trying to satisfy the people and to prevent certain voters from having to enter areas which they think are unsafe. The way round the problem is for the Minister to accept amendment (a) and to say, "Let us have an election and see how it works out. If it works out all right at the next election, we shall not have to call into action the proposed schedule."

Mr. James Molyneaux: I feel that I must reinforce what has already been said by Back-Bench Members in this debate. I feel that the House is treading on dangerous ground. It will certainly be doing so if we go down the road that is suggested without us protesting and issuing warnings that a mistake is being made and a bad precedent is being set.
When part of a Bill is drafted by the Northern Ireland Office, it usually has the unique feature of a self-destruct fuse. I think that that is a term used by spacemen; perhaps they were "spacers", as it were, who suggested the incorporation of this feature in the first place. The Northern Ireland Act 1982 contains a self-destruct fuse in the section that provides that, if it appears to Her Majesty that no proposals from the Northern Ireland Assembly will be forthcoming, she may take certain action. I wonder how many times Her Majesty has turned over in her bed uneasily when something is to happen under that legislation to which she can give her attention and she is left wondering whether she will be called upon to pull the lever and operate the self-destruct fuse.
I am concerned by the mention of a special polling list. I understand that the Minister intends that it should be to some extent a replacement for the register, but will it be recognised in legal terms as a substitute? What will be the position if the presiding officer in a polling station feels that he has to put the statutory question by reason of the lists of identity papers which have been produced? If the proposed provisions were in force, would he say, "Are you the person whose name appears on the special list as John Brown?", or would he say, in the terms of current legislation, "Are you the person whose name appears on the register as John Brown?" It seems that there will be a fundamental change in the law.
There is another curious feature which I assume has been considered by those who inspired the Bill. I do not blame the Minister for this, because it is my experience and that of my colleagues that he has far too much common sense ever to suggest that which appears in the proposals which are now before us. It appears that the ballot papers will have to be sorted into little packets to be dispatched to the appropriate place of count for each of the 17 constituencies. They can be sorted only if they are placed upwards in the presence of those representing the candidates, and it appears that they will be permitted to appoint representatives. Those who have attended counts know what nail-biting occasions they can be. They will be aware that it is required that ballot papers should be kept face down when they are being verified along with the totals. Under the provisions that are before us, they will be placed face upwards, as there will be no other way of defining, deciding and identifying which belongs to which constituent. The secrecy of the ballot will go for a burton at the beginning of the process.
We must remember that the object of the exercise is to deal with those who have a reputation for being unscrupulous. The parties that are represented in this place would never stoop to the practices of those with whom the Bill seeks to deal, but there are unscrupulous parties in Northern Ireland and one or two on this side of the water who are not represented in this place. It would not be beyond them to seek to identify the voter who was at a seaside resort on a particular occasion and who cast his vote for a certain candidate or party.
I hope that the Minister will ensure that the Home Ofice considers the arguments which I and others have advanced. I hope also that he will be persuaded by our arguments in this short debate. If we must try out that which is proposed, let it be done on an experimental basis. It should not become a permanent feature of this legislation. I think that it will be seen in due course as a nonsensical proposal by us all. I do not exclude you from that remark, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for we have all participated in the fighting of elections.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I do not believe that the constitutional right to exercise a franchise in any part of the United Kingdom should be capable of being varied by means of subordinate legislation at the behest of a Minister. I do not think that it is satisfactory that the Bill should be amended in the manner proposed by the Government, apparently as a result of the influence of a member of the Government who is not even present in the House this evening.
I understand the convention in these matters, and I recognise that this is a Home Office Bill, but the provisions before us relate specifically to the problems of


Northern Ireland, and it seems that they have been included at the behest of the Northern Ireland Office. It would therefore have been appropriate to invite a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office to be present to answer questions about the Government's thinking on this matter. The Under-Secretary has been discharged from any personal liability for the monstrosity that he is commending to the House. I am happy to discharge him from any culpability, but the Government as a whole should not be so discharged.
We cannot approve these measures without closely analysing the mischief which they are apparently designed to correct. The most compelling part of the speech of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) was the deployment of the argument that the mischief which the measures appear to be designed to correct is probably a lesser mischief than the one that is likely to be caused by their implementation. That being so, the new clause seems like a last gasp from the Northern Ireland Office wishing to set its stamp on the Bill so that if matters do not go right at the next general election in Northern Ireland the Northern Ireland Office can say, "Well, we tried." That is an unsatisfactory way to proceed.
8.30 pm
I part company from the right hon. Member for South Down when he speaks about the difficulties faced by his constituents in a constituency of 600 square miles having to travel perhaps as much as 20 miles to a special polling station. In my constituency of 2,800 square miles, many of my constituents have normally to travel more than 20 miles to the polling station.
I strongly resent the suggestion that this proposal should be included in the Bill. I and my Liberal colleagues will not support the Government. We cannot accept that a bargain was struck by the House on this issue. I understand what the Minister said about the bargain that he has struck with his colleagues within the Government, but that is not a bargain to which we are party and, therefore, we cannot go along with it.

Mr. Kaufman: I shall not join in the general plaudits for the Minister, because I have done him enough damage in that way during the earlier course of the Bill. I share the opinions of all hon. Members who have spoken since the Minister moved the new clause. It is a great pity that, if the Government have their way, we shall enshrine in the legislation a legislative anomaly which flaws the other change in the Bill.
I have tried to work out what kind of legislation we shall get as a result of the Government's proposal. So far as I can see, we are pioneering in legislative form, because if we pass the changes that the Government want, against the will of those who have spoken, we shall be indulging in prospective, retrospective legislation. We shall be looking forward to going backward on something that the House of Commons has decided to do this evening.
I do not believe that that is sensible or good legislative practice or that it accords with the will of the House in wanting to achieve parity of absent voting arrangements for the whole of the United Kingdom. I say that because for several months now, as the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has been kind enough to point out, since the publication of the White Paper we have been trying to achieve parity of absent voting. Apart from that

major flaw, we are extremely gratified by what we have achieved. The Government amendments, which in two places remove the words "in Northern Ireland", are important because they provide parity of absent voting arrangements.
I am pleased that the Government, having accepted that arrangement, have achieved parity on the basis of limiting absent votes cast by post to within the United Kingdom. I have had great misgivings — it is one of the many reasons why I opposed the expatriate vote — about the idea of ballot papers being sent outside the islands of this kingdom to other parts of the world—firstly, because of the unreliability of such an arrangement but, much more, because the secrecy of the ballot cannot best be preserved if ballot papers are floating around all over the world liable to be tampered with by people outside this country.
I am therefore pleased that the Government have, after listening to arguments, yielded to the proposal that we made, with the agreement and support of others, that absent voting by post should be confined to within the United Kingdom while those who go outside the United Kingdom exercise it more safely, more reliably and more secretly by proxy vote.
There is a good deal to welcome in this group of amendments. That being so, it is a pity that there is a—I will not say fatal — damaging flaw in the Government's fail-safe proposal. We do not like that and we support the amendment spoken to by the right hon. Member for South Down.

Mr. Mellor: I am, of course, sad that the only voice that has been raised in support of this proposition should have been mine. I am sensitive enough to the atmosphere that we have created in this legislation to know that that is an increasingly unique event and one which, all other things being equal, I should not have wanted to happen.
A whole line of argument has not been fully deployed this evening, but it needs to be considered. It is that, of course, in any democracy, and in any part of the United Kingdom, there could be potential electoral malpractice. We cannot blind ourselves to the reality that where there are difficulties and stresses within a community, prospects for electoral malpractice are that much greater. That has been the unhappy lot of Northern Ireland, and it is something which I, having no contact with the Province, regret as profoundly as those who bravely lead a public life in the Province, when to lead a public life exposes them to far more risks than any of us on this side of the water can contemplate.
The House was minded to agree, only a few months ago — of course in the teeth of opposition; not from the official Opposition, although I do not criticise them for that, far from it — to introduce special arrangements in relation to voting in person that reflected the difficulties that many people believed arose because of the stresses and strains within Northern Ireland.
Having introduced those special arrangements to make even more sure than we have customarily been able to do that the person presenting himself to exercise his vote is the person whose vote is being claimed, we should not ridicule or underestimate the force of the argument that it would be unfortunate — to put it no higher — if the consequence of the provision to extend absent voting was to allow people to circumvent the provisions which Parliament had approved for voting in person. Therefore, in the view of the Government, in the shape of my right


hon. Friends at the Northern Ireland Office, in whose place I stand, this is not a matter that can be lightly discounted, although there is room for argument.
As a consequence of those arguments, a legitimate accommodation has been reached whereby the Government have been pleased to agree that the arrangements should apply throughout the United Kingdom. I do not say that in a spirit of concession, because it was meant, not as a concession to any part of the United Kingdom, but as a change from the Government's original view. We have not hesitated to change this area of our thinking, any more than we have hesitated to change others.
However much one might change one's approach to the position, one cannot put out of mind the residual fear that there are those who will exploit any opportunity for malpractice. The Government having taken the view which they did only a few months ago that voting in person and the regulations attaching to that needed to be tightened up, it might be said that the two are inconsistent and that the opportunity that was denied to malefactors a few months ago is being reopened to them now. That is why the Government believe firmly that it would be wrong not to take the opportunity to be able readily to change these arrangements in the event that cogent evidence is brought forward that malpractice is likely. No prudent Secretary of State would want to go forward with an election without availing himself of the opportunities presented by the amendment that I now propose.
I am sad that this should be seen as a constitutional monstrosity. It gives me no pleasure to hear it so denounced. However, I believe that it represents a proper basis on which the House can proceed. It demonstrates that we have listened and responded to the genuine feeling of a substantial minority in the House that we should endeavour not to be deflected from the course of common arrangements any more than is absolutely necessary, and that, although the evidence is not wholly conclusive of that now, that evidence may become available. It would be foolish not to have the opportunity readily to hand to make certain changes, provided that the House was satisfied that that should be done.
I have to say to the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) with considerable regret that it is not open to me to state that we believe there can be any time limit on these powers. Who is to say what changes may occur between now and any point in the future in the increasingly difficult situation in Northern Ireland, mitigated by the fact that in one substantial respect the power to do this applies throughout the United Kingdom? As the right hon. Gentleman properly said during our earlier consideration of the Bill, I am not one to underestimate the potential for abuse anywhere in the United Kingdom. Electoral abuse is not a monopoly of any one part of the United Kingdom. In this instance I cannot assist the right hon. Gentleman as much as I have tried to assist in earlier stages of the Bill. Even if he cannot agree with me, I hope that he understands why that must be.
An accommodation has been reached which is perhaps unsatisfactory to both sides of the question. There are those who believe that there is no evidence of malpractice to justify these arrangements and that, even if there were, it would be wrong to introduce those arrangements because the system has to be able to stand as a whole. That I understand. Others take the view that we cannot protect

the integrity of our democracy unless, to face exceptional circumstances, we are prepared to take exceptional measures.
I therefore commend the amendment to the House. With regret, I cannot commend acceptance of the right hon. Gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Michael Foot: I have listened to the entire debate and to some of the previous discussions on the Bill. I think that the Minister's reply is a quite inadequate defence of an innovation that has been explained by other hon. Members who described exactly what the Government are doing constitutionally in their proposal. Even if the hon. Gentleman were defending the immediate proposition, the reply would be insufficient, but it is certainly insufficient if it is to be a defence of the major innovation involved. The hon. Gentleman has not sought to reply to that.
I fully accept that the Minister has done a great deal through discussion and negotiation to try to produce a Bill which commands general assent in the House. It is right that the Government should do so, especially with a Bill of this nature.
I make a final plea to the hon. Gentleman to look at the matter afresh. He does not have to slam the door now, particularly on the basis that he does so. He talks of an accommodation. If it is an accommodation, as has been indicated, it must be one between the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office. If that is the accommodation, it is wrong that no representative of the Northern Ireland Office has attended the debate. In order for the House to have a real debate and chance of reaching a fresh accommodation — that is what Committee and Report stages are for—the Northern Ireland Office should have been present to hear the representations not only of Northern Ireland but of every other hon. Member who has spoken in the debate.

Mr. Mellor: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but I must make clear that in my references to an accommodation I meant an accommodation between the various views put forward in Parliament on which the Government have only one view, that is, the view that I have put forward. It is in that spirit, considering what changes have been made, that I use the word accommodation.

Mr. Foot: I am eager to accept that explanation because, if that is the case, the Minister can easily make a further accommodation which unites the House. It is very easy for him to do this. From what he says, he has plenary powers, and I am glad to hear that. He does not have to worry a fig about the Northern Ireland Office—to hell with the Northern Ireland Office. That, I am sure, will unite considerable sections of the House. We are gratified to know that the hon. Gentleman has the plenary powers at his disposal. All he has to do now — and I say this seriously — is to recognise the present mood of the House on the subject. Now that Parliament has considered the matter carefully and had the first opportunity to debate the question, it is evident that not a single voice, not a single inflection of a voice, supports the Government's proposition for the good reason that the Government have no case.
The Minister was much more persuasive in his first speech than in his last one. In his first speech he defended the general arrangements that have been reached. In his last speech, he had to defend the Government from attack.
I plead with the hon. Gentleman, and we have a right to plead in consideration of the Bill, as I am sure he will acknowledge. If the Bill had been left in the form in which it was originally introduced by the Home Office, it would have caused ructions and opposition throughout the country. However, it has been altered and transformed in its passage through Parliament by my right hon. Friends and other hon. Members who have engaged in the negotiations and discussions. The Bill has been transformed into what all Representation of the People Bills should be, that is, Bills which can command general assent in the House. I plead with the hon. Gentleman not to slam the door now. Other opportunities remain in which the matter can be discussed and there are other places in which it can be altered.
Just as we have made huge improvements in other parts of the Bill, so should the Minister listen to what we are now saying. I hope that he will not insist that what he said is the final word, and that he will consider the amendment afresh. It would uphold the constitutional arrangement instead of damaging it, as has been clearly described.

Mr. Kaufman: With the leave of the House, I should like to add a further word. A possibility has occurred to me. While not dealing with the constitutional argument that has been put forward, to which I adhere and which I support, it might at any rate provide uniformity of the sort that we have seen in the discussions of the Bill. Therefore, I put to the Minister—I do not expect him to respond now — the possibility that in the House of Lords the Government might consider making the new clause a new schedule, so that the change would not single out Northern Ireland but be potentially applicable to the whole United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause accordingly read a Second time.
Amendment (a) proposed, in subsection (2), after 'instrument', insert
'not later than three years after the commencement of this Act.'.—[Molyneaux.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes, 84, Noes 168.

Division No. 136]
[8.52 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Paddy
Corbett, Robin


Barron, Kevin
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beggs, Roy
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Beith, A. J.
Dixon, Donald


Bell, Stuart
Dubs, Alfred


Bermingham, Gerald
Eastham, Ken


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Boyes, Roland
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Fisher, Mark


Bruce, Malcolm
Flannery, Martin


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Forrester, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
George, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Clarke, Thomas
Haynes, Frank


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Home Robertson, John


Cohen, Harry
Howells, Geraint





Hoyle, Douglas
O'Brien, William


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Paisley, Rev Ian


John, Brynmor
Park, George


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Penhaligon, David


Kennedy, Charles
Pike, Peter


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Kirkwood, Archy
Prescott, John


Leadbitter, Ted
Redmond, M.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Loyden, Edward
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


McCrea, Rev William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Steel, Rt Hon David


McGuire, Michael
Strang, Gavin


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


McWilliam, John
Wainwright, R.


Madden, Max
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Maginnis, Ken
Wallace, James


Maxton, John
Wareing, Robert


Meadowcroft, Michael



Michie, William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. William Ross and


Nicholson, J.
Rev. Martin Smyth.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Ancram, Michael
Gower, Sir Raymond


Arnold, Tom
Gregory, Conal


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Gummer, John Selwyn


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Batiste, Spencer
Harris, David


Bellingham, Henry
Henderson, Barry


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Hicks, Robert


Benyon, William
Hind, Kenneth


Best, Keith
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hunter, Andrew


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Blackburn, John
Irving, Charles


Bottomley, Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Knox, David


Bright, Graham
Lang, Ian


Brinton, Tim
Lawler, Geoffrey


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Lee, John (Pendle)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Browne, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bruinvels, Peter
Lilley, Peter


Bulmer, Esmond
Lord, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Lyell, Nicholas


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Macfarlane, Neil


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
MacGregor, John


Carttiss, Michael
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Cash, William
Maclean, David John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Maples, John


Chope, Christopher
Marlow, Antony


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Conway, Derek
Mather, Carol


Coombs, Simon
Maude, Hon Francis


Cope, John
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Corrie, John
Mellor, David


Couchman, James
Merchant, Piers


Cranborne, Viscount
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Crouch, David
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Dover, Den
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Dunn, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman


Durant, Tony
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Dykes, Hugh
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Eggar, Tim
Moyninan, Hon C.


Evennett, David
Murphy, Christopher


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Neale, Gerrard


Failon, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Favell, Anthony
Nicholls, Patrick


Fookes, Miss Janet
Norris, Steven


Fry, Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Gale, Roger
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)






Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Parris, Matthew
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Terlezki, Stefan


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Pollock, Alexander
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Portillo, Michael
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Powley, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thurnham, Peter


Raffan, Keith
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rathbone, Tim
Tracey, Richard


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Trotter, Neville


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roe, Mrs Marion
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Waddington, David


Rowe, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Ward, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Watson, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Cohn (Hereford)
Whitney, Raymond


Silvester, Fred
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilkinson, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Speed, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas


Speller, Tony
Wolfson, Mark


Spencer, Derek
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stanbrook, Ivor



Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mr. John Major and


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Mr. Peter Lloyd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

LIMITATION ON CANVASSING

'No canvassing for an election may take place within twenty-five yards of any place designated as a polling place for the election.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am grateful that the new clause has been selected and do not propose to press it to a Division, as it is a probing new clause concerning the practical experience of returning officers to whom I have spoken who are worried that there is a lack of definition in the law. I apologise for the new clause not being the jewel in the crown of the parliamentary draftsman.
During elections, many allegations and counter-allegations concerning the behaviour of candidates' helpers reach the returning officer, mainly because the law on canvassing is unclear. I shall give some examples of the questions that are asked. Should people be allowed into the school porch with stickers on or with posters in their hands or with polling cards with the names of the candidate? Should it be permissible to buttonhole people as they walk up the footpath to the polling station or to whisper in their ear the name of the preferred candidate as, at 9.58 pm, they sneak in to cast the last vote of the day?
Can the committee rooms of the other party be five yards opposite the entrance to the school where polling is taking place, plastered with posters influencing the voter who might not have made up his mind on the person for whom he should vote? What about that famous aberration, the sticker on the tree? Is it possible to have the name of the candidate plastered all over the trees, the railings or the

corrugated iron? In my constituency, I am grateful that there are trees and corrugated iron because they are the only solace that they give to the opposition. They tend to have no posters in windows, but to cover the rest of the constituency. However, trees and corrugated iron do not have the vote yet.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Except in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hughes: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) considers himself to be nearer to these aberrations on the Celtic fringe than I am. Certainly, in Southwark and Bermondsey, the trees and the corrugated iron do not vote.
What about the latest and most recent addition to this panoply of alternative canvassing—the sandwich people on the pavement, parading up and down? They give the name of the candidate or — in an election such as the by-election at which I was first elected to the House, in which there were 16 candidates — the number of the candidate, which might be easier to remember.
The problem is extended and expanded by the increase in technology. What about the loud hailer, the megaphone or the public address system coming down the street shouting, "Vote, vote, vote for Alan Beith, David Mellor, Kevin Barron or Simon Hughes"? Are they obliged, five yards before the entrance to the polling station, to go quiet, slide past and then incite people again? Can they aim their fire at the gate of the polling station so that as people go into vote they are battered with the name of the technologically best-equipped candidate? I hear grunts of approval from the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). Obviously, hard tactics are employed, which is why he ends up with a relatively large majority.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): If the new clause were to be accepted, would it be permissible for one, during the campaign or the three-week period, to call on those who live next door to the polling station? On the wording of the new clause, it would seem that we are to be excluded from the whole of the area, and some may welcome that. Let it not be said that the hon. Gentleman's drafting is as daft as his new clause.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) was about to get my approval for his intervention, but he lost it with his final sentence. As he will recollect, at the beginning I said that my new clause was intended as a general proposition relating to election day. As he suggested, schoolkeepers, having had to put up with all the inconvenience of election day, might be pleased to be spared by the canvassers who try to get around the Alsatian in the days before the election to cull the one or two votes that there may be in the school-keeper's house.
The issue is what should be the definition and the acceptability of canvassing. It is a practical problem that occupies much of the time of officers of local authorities — returning officers and their staff — each time that an election is held. I am not suggesting that, where it is proper and lawful, one should put off those who wish to canvass. It is not in the same category as that illegal practice that would be carried out by a priest, a vicar or a minister seeking to exert spiritual influence. Halsbury says:
Ministers of religion may legitimately address their congregations upon the candidates' conflicting claims, but in this


connection must not hold out hopes of reward for the hereafter, or threaten to excommunicate or to withhold the sacraments, or denounce the voting for any particular candidate as a sin.
I am not suggesting that the kind of practices about which we are speaking come into that larger than life category, but people are for ever being told, "Take off your badge; you can't go into the polling station wearing that sticker; stay outside if you are carrying those posters."

Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend will remember that one of the difficulties faced by people at polling stations because of the unlimited discretion that is given to returning officers is that tellers are frequently made to stand out in the rain or on the other side of the street when they are carrying out the legitimate democratic practice of assembling a list of the number of people who have voted.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is right. If one looks at the statutes that govern elections, these are discretions that most electoral registration officers and returning officers would prefer not to have. They have to adjudicate, and the circumstances are infinitely variable. They have a very hard job to peform not only on polling day but afterwards in trying to convince people that they have made a fair decision.
When asked in opinion polls or on the street who they will vote for at elections, many people say that they will make up their mind when they get to the polling station. If that is the case, we have to ensure that people reach polling stations in a fit state to make up their minds once they arrive there. The last impression might not be so valuable as the first. The reason for the new clause and the request to the Minister to assist not only the House but all those who seek to make sure that we have free and fair elections is the need for a boundary, a guideline and a reference point.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that anybody who occupies a residence within 25 yards of a polling station will be unable to put a poster in his window?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for St. Helens, South made a similar point. If we defined "polling station" as opposed to "polling place" we should not prevent a schoolkeeper who lived within the curtilage of the school from doing so. If, however, the schoolkeeper or caretaker lives in the polling place there is sometimes a problem if they wish to display party political propaganda on election day. To my knowledge, schoolkeepers have been asked to take down posters that they have displayed because they look out over the playground and people see them last as they go into the school. That is a relevant issue.
The practice in Rother Valley and in Southwark may be different. The results may well be different, too. The hon. Gentleman no doubt wishes it were otherwise but that is not the case. I hope the Minister will either say that the law as it stands needs no amendment or that he will be willing with his right hon. and learned Friend to look at the present practice and reassure the most harassed people of all on election day, the returning officers, who very often face political difficulties in trying to interpret something that is not at the moment defined.

Mr. Mellor: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman. We have tried to deal not with some of

the larger points but with some of the details relating to electoral regulations in order to discover what improvements need to be made. We have made a thorough trawl through the detail, assisted by many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) who knows a great deal about these matters.
My difficulty about responding as fully as I would have wished to the new clause is that the Government have not had these matters drawn formally to our attention during the course of the consultation exercise and the many discussions that have taken place. I fully understand his examples relating to the exercise of discretion that is involved. I have not participated in any election where there have not been difficulties. However, I am not sure whether a rule of the kind that the hon. Gentleman proposes would result in clarity or would create anomalies of a different kind. One may be thrown back on the ERO's discretion as the only appropriate way of keeping order in view of the many problems that can arise.
9.15 pm
I would say only that if there are matters that the hon. Gentleman wants to set out more fully in writing, I and my officials will look at them, as we have tried to do genuinely with every point, however large or small, that has been brought to us in this measure. Up to now we have not had widespread reports that people think that a change is necessary in either the statute or the regulations, which it is worth bearing in mind will be drawn up later, so there is not such a short timescale. But I shall consider sympathetically any points that the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends wish to raise on this at a later date.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that. As I said, I do not intend to do more than test the temperature today. I understand that at conferences of senior officers of authorities concern has been expressed about this issue, certainly by more than just the officers in the London borough of Southwark. It may not have featured as prominently as other matters that have been legislated upon or upon which legislation is proposed. I shall take up the Under-Secretary's offer and ask my chief officers, and those whom they know share the same concerns, to make formal representations to him and to his Department in the hope that where there has been confusion and chaos in the past practices may be made easier and any injustices may be remedied. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

EXTENSION OF PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, at end insert 'and'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 2 to 8 and 10 to 15.

Mr. Brittan: These are all consequential amendments which reflect the deletion in Committee of the second set of conditions, as they are called, in clauses 1 and 3. The second set of conditions comprises the conditions under which a person could qualify as an overseas elector if he


had left the United Kingdom before he reached voting age. As those have been deleted, it would be appropriate to delete the matters referred to in the amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 2, in page 1, line 13, leave out '(age apart)'.
No. 3, in page 1, line 14, leave out from 'citizen' to end of line 16.
No. 4, in page 2, line 6, leave out
'one of the following sets of'
and insert 'the following'.
No. 5, in page 2, line 7, leave out
'The first set of conditions is'
and insert 'Those conditions are'.—[Mr. Britton.]

Clause 2

REGISTRATION OF BRITISH CITIZENS OVERSEAS

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 2, line 34, leave out
'or, as the case may be, at which he was resident'.
No. 7, in page 2, line 42, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 43.
No. 8, in page 3, line 5, leave out 'and'. —[Mr. Britton.]

Mr. Britton: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 9, at end insert
and,
(e) that the declarant has not formed the intention to reside permanently outside the United Kingdom'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 2, leave out
'has not formed the intention'
and insert 'does not intend'.

Mr. Brittan: These amendments deal with a declaration required from an overseas elector about his intentions with regard to whether he will reside permanently outside the United Kingdom. The House will recall that that was one of the most anxious of matters that was discussed at an earlier stage. I accept that it is appropriate that a declaration of the right kind should be made by anybody who is seeking to vote if outside the United Kingdom. Two forms of declaration have been offered. One is that the declarant
has not formed the intention
to reside permanently outside the United Kingdom and the other is simply that he "does not intend" to reside permanently outside the United Kingdom. The latter has been proposed by the Opposition and I am content to accept it as a form of words preferable to that which I had originally proposed. Therefore, I invite the House to agree to amendment (a).

Mr. Barron: The House will appreciate that this is the third occasion on which I have tabled an Opposition amendment and the Minister has accepted it. I am only sorry that he did not see fit to do so when we discussed new clause 28 in Committee.
I am pleased that the Government have decided to accept amendment (a). I discussed it with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who, as everyone will know, is a parliamentary expert on grammar. He felt, as did my right hon. and hon. Friends, that the phrase
has not formed the intention
would be much better replaced by the phrase "does not intend". When reading the Bill, I am sure that many people outside the House will agree with that.
Amendment to the proposed amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 10, in page 3, line 15, leave out from beginning to 'specify' in line 22 and insert
'specify the address in respect of which he was registered and may not'.
No. 11, in page 3, line 26, leave out
'or, as the case may be, at which he was resident'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 3

EXTENSION OF FRANCHISE FOR EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 4, line 19, leave out '(age apart)'.
No. 13, in line 21, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 22.
No. 14, in line 30, leave out
'one of the following sets of'
and insert 'the following'.
No. 15, in line 31, leave out
'The first set of conditions is'
and insert 'Those conditions are'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 6

ABSENT VOTE AT ELECTIONS FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 8, line 42, after 'them', insert 'in their applications'.
No. 17, in page 9, line 14, leave out 'included and insert 'shown'.
No. 18, in page 9, line 20, leave out 'in Northern Ireland'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 7

ABSENT VOTE AT A PARTICULAR ELECTION AND ABSENT VOTERS LIST

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 9, line 25, leave out
'election in Great Britain or at a particular'
and insert 'or'.
No. 20, in page 9, line 26, after 'application' insert
'(subject to subsection (5) below)'.
No. 21, in page 9, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 26 on page 10 and insert—

'(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to a person who is included in the record kept under section 6 of this Act in respect of elections of the kind in question, but such a person may, in respect of a particular parliamentary or local government election, apply to the registration officer—

(a) for his ballot paper to be sent to a different address in the United Kingdom or,
(b) to vote by proxy,

if he is shown in the record so kept as voting by post at elections of the kind in question.
(3) The registration officer shall grant an application under subsection (2) above if it meets the prescribed requirements.'

No. 22, in page 10, line 30, after 'of' insert '(i)'.
No. 23, in page 10, line 30, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1) above'.
No. 24, in page 10, line 31, leave out from 'granted' to 'together' in line 34.
No. 25, in page 10, line 35, after 'them' insert 'in their applications'.
No. 26, in page 10, line 36, at end insert—
'(ii) those who are for the time being shown in the record kept under section 6 of this Act as voting;


by post at elections of the kind in question (excluding those so shown whose applications under subsection (2) above to vote by proxy at the election have been granted), together with the addresses provided by them in their applications under that section or, as the case may be, subsection (2) above as the addresses to which their ballot papers are to be sent, and'.
No. 27, in page 10, line 40, leave out 'included' and insert 'shown'.
No. 28, in page 10, line 44, leave out 'in Northern Ireland'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 8

PROXIES AT ELECTIONS

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 12, leave out lines 26 and 27—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 9

VOTING AS PROXY

Amendments made: No. 30, in page 12, line 41, leave out
'of proxies entitled to vote by post at'
and insert
'kept under subsection (7) below in respect of'.
No. 31, in page 13, line 7, leave out 'and' and insert
'or
(b) the address provided by the applicant in his application as the address to which his ballot paper is to be sent is not in the same area as the elector's qualifying address or, where the elector is registered in pursuance of an overseas elector's declaration, the address specified in the declaration in accordance with section 2(4) of this Act'.
No. 32, in page 13, line 8, leave out '(b)' and insert 'and'.
No. 33, in page 13, line 8, at end insert—
'(4A) For the purposes of this section, two addresses are in the same area only if—

(a)both addresses are in the same parliamentary constituency in Greater London or in the same parliamentary constituency in a metropolitan county in England,
(b)both addresses are in the same electoral division of a non-metropolitan county in England and, if either address is in a parish, both are in the same parish,
(c)both addresses are in the same electoral division of a county in Wales and in the same community,
(d)both addresses are in the same electoral division in Scotland, or
(e) both addresses are in the same ward in Northern Ireland.'

No. 34, in page 13, line 15, after 'them', insert 'in their applications'
No. 35, in page 13, line 22, leave out
'in the case of an election in Great Britain'.
No. 36, in page 13, line 28, leave out from beginning to 'or' in line 34.
No. 37, in page 13, line 39, at end insert—
'(6A) Where, in the case of a particular election, a person included in the record kept under subsection (5) above in respect of elections of the kind in question applies to the registration officer for his ballot paper to be sent to a different address in the United Kingdom, the registration officer shall grant the application if it meets the prescribed requirements'
No. 38, in page 13, line 41, leave out
'("the list of proxies entitled to vote by post")'
No. 39, in page 13, line 42, after second 'of' insert '(a)'.
No. 40, in page 13, line 44, leave out from 'question' to 'together' in line 1 on page 14.
No. 41, in page 14, line 2, after 'them', insert
'in their applications under that subsection or, as the case may be, subsection (6A) above'.
No. 42, in page 14, line 3, at end insert
'and
(b) those whose applications under subsection (6) above have been granted in respect of the election concerned, together with the addresses provided by them in their applications as the addresses to which their ballot papers are to be sent.'
No. 43, in page 14, line 15, after
'(a)', insert 'if he applies to the registration officer to be removed,
(aa) where he was included in the record on the ground mentioned in subsection (4)(a) above'.
No. 44, in page 14, line 25, leave out 'in Northern Ireland'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 11

OFFENCES AS TO DECLARATIONS, ETC.

Amendment made: No. 45, in page 15, line 12, after 'Act', insert
'or attests an application under section 6 or 7 of this Act when he knows that he is not authorised to do so or that it contains a statement which is false'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 16

COMBINATION OF POLLS AT LOCAL ELECTIONS

Amendment made: No. 46, in page 18, line 2, after 'parish', insert 'or community'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 18

TIMING OF ELECTIONS

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 18, line 41, leave out 'Christmas Day' and insert
'Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Maundy Thursday'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 48 to 51.

Mr. Mellor: The amendment gives effect to undertakings which I gave in response to a debate instigated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett).

Mr. Kaufman: This group of amendments is very close to the heart of Mr. Don Storer of the national agents' office at Walworth road. We are grateful to the Minister for moving them, and we carry on on our triumphant path.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 48, in page 19, line 7, leave out from 'the' to 'and' in line 8 and insert
'words "Sunday", "Christmas Day", and "Good Friday" there shall be inserted respectively the words "Saturday", "Christmas Eve" and "Maundy Thursday"'.
No. 49, in page 19, line 16, leave out 'Christmas Day' and insert
'Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Maundy Thursday'.
No. 50, in page 19, line 27, leave out 'a Christmas Day' and insert
'Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Maundy Thursday'.
No. 51, in page 19, line 42, leave out 'Christmas Day' and insert
'Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Maundy Thursday'. — [Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 20

ORDINARY ELECTIONS OF PARISH AND COMMUNITY COUNCILLORS: INSUFFICIENT NOMINATIONS

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 21, line 30 at end insert
'; but the powers mentioned in paragraph (b) above shall not be exercised before the expiry of the period of 35 days (computed according to section 40 of that Act) beginning with the day on which the election was held'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 53.

Mr. Mellor: On the basis of Christmas coming in February, this is a gift to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

Mr. Beith: Not only to me, but to the National Association of Local Parish Councils, of which I am a vice-president. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to this change in the timetable arrangements. I thank him for responding so readily to the representations of parish councils.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 53, in page 21, line 34, at end insert
'and section 40(3) of that Act (computation of time) shall apply for the purposes of subsection (2) above as it applies for the purposes of section 39'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 26

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 54, in page 22, line 41, after '11', insert
'[Voting at special polling stations in Northern Ireland]'.
No. 55, in page 22, line 42, after 'of, insert
'and Schedule [Special polling stations in Northern Ireland] to'.
No. 56, in page 22, line 42, after 'sections', insert 'and that Schedule'.
No. 57, in page 23, line 6, after '11', insert
'[Voting at special polling stations in Northern Ireland]'.
No. 58, in page 23, line 6, after 'of', insert
'and Schedule [Special polling stations in Northern Ireland] to'. —[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 28

CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.

Amendment made: No. 59, in page 23, line 24, leave out from 'except' to 'shall' in line 25 and insert
'the provisions mentioned in subsection (2A) below).'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 23, line 28, leave out 'and for different purposes'.
I am grateful to the Chair for selecting the amendment. In Committee, the Minister undertook to do some research into the distinction between "different provisions" and "different purposes". It appears to me that if there is a distinction and if a provision can include several purposes, it would be awkward to bring only part of a provision into force by an order.
I hope that the Minister is now in a position to clarify the necessity for both expressions.

Mr. Mellor: The one which gave difficulty was the use of the phrase "for different purposes". I am advised that

this is perhaps a more commonplace piece of drafting than the right hon. Gentleman thought. The Representation of the People Act 1969 included a similar provision, and there are other instances.
I shall give three random examples of how the phrase may be used in the hope of persuading the right hon. Gentleman that there is merit in it. Regarding penalties, schedule 2 increases the penalties for various offences under the 1983 legislation. The commencement order would bring the new penalties into effect on a particular day, except for the purpose of any proceedings which have been instituted before that day. A distinction could be drawn which is based on the words "for different purposes". Without them that distinction would be difficult to make.
Similarly, on election petitions, paragraph 48 of schedule 3 increases the security for costs on the trial of an election petition. The commencement order would bring the new securities into force on a particular day, except for the purpose of a petition which had been presented before that day.
Finally, regarding the election timetable, paragraph 73 of schedule 3 increases the length of the timetable of a parliamentary election. The new timetable would come into operation on such and such a day except for the purposes of any election for which the writ had been issued before that day. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman finds that helpful.

Mr. Powell: I understand that without these words it would be impossible for a commencement order to make transitional provisions. That is obviously convenient, and therefore I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 61 in page 23, line 29 at end insert—
'(2A) Those provisions are—

(a) sections 24(1) and 26(1) of this Act, this section, the amendment made by paragraph 18 of Schedule 3 to this Act and the repeal made by the entry in Schedule 4 to this Act relating to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (which come into force on the day on which this Act is passed), and
(b) Schedule [Special polling stations in Northern Ireland) to this Act (which may be brought into force under section [Voting at special polling stations in Northern. Ireland] of this Act).'.

No. 62, in page 23, line 31 at end insert—
'and section [Voting at special polling stations in Northern Ireland] of and Schedule [Special polling stations in Northern Ireland] to this Act extend to Northern Ireland only.'. —[Mr. Mellor.]

New Schedule

SPECIAL POLLING STATIONS IN NORTHERN IRELAND

PART I RIGHT TO VOTE AT SPECIAL POLLING STATIONS

1.—(1) Where, in the case of a person entitled to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election in Northern Ireland, the absent voters list shows that a special polling station is allotted to him he may, notwithstanding anything in section 5 of this Act, vote only in person at that polling station.
(2) Where a person applies to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland (in this Schedule referred to as "the electoral


officer") to vote at a particular parliamentary election in Northern Ireland at a special polling station, the electoral officer shall grant the application if—

(a) he is satisfied that the applicant's circumstances on the date of the poll will be or are likely to be such that he cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at the polling station allotted or likely to be allotted to him under the parliamentary elections rules,
(b) he is satisfied that the applicant is or will be registered in the register of parliamentary electors, and
(c) the application meets the prescribed requirements.


(3) The electoral officer shall allot a special polling station to any person whose application under this paragraph is granted and shall send him a notice setting out the situation of the special polling station allotted to him and giving such other information as may be prescribed.
(4) There shall be included in the absent voters list in respect of each parliamentary election in Northern Ireland a list of persons whose applications under this paragraph have been granted, setting out, in the case of each person, the situation of the special polling station allotted to him and giving such other information as may be prescribed.
(5) For the purposes of this paragraph, the electoral officer—

(a) shall designate special polling places and may by further designations from time to time alter any designation under this paragraph,
(b) shall publish such notice as he thinks is required of the situation of any place or places currently designated under this paragraph, and
(c) shall in respect of each parliamentary election, provide a special polling station in each special polling place, unless he is satisfied that the number of persons likely to vote there at that election does not justify it.


(6) Sub-paragraph (5) above has effect notwithstanding anything in section 18 of the principal Act.

PART II RULES RELATING TO SPECIAL POLLING STATIONS

2. The paragraphs in this Part of this Schedule shall have effect for all purposes as additional rules in Schedule 1 to the principal Act.
3. The official mark on the ballot paper of those voting in respect of a constituency at a special polling station—

(a) shall be different from the official mark on the ballot papers of those voting at the same election in respect of the constituency at polling stations allotted to them under the parliamentary elections rules, and
(b) shall be kept secret;

and an interval of seven years shall intervene between the use of the same official mark on ballot papers of those voting at special polling stations.
4.—

(1) The electoral officer shall provide each presiding officer at a special polling station with a list (in this Schedule referred to as "the special polling list") of those electors to whom the special polling station has been allotted, showing for each elector—

(a) the constituency in respect of which he is or appears from the electors lists concerned to be entitled to be registered, and
(b) his electoral number.

(2) Rule 7(6) of the parliamentary elections rules applies for the purposes of this paragraph.

5.—

(1) The electoral officer may, after such consultation as appears to him to be desirable, appoint persons (including candidates and their election agents) to attend special polling stations as observers, and each appointment of an observer—

(a) shall be made in writing, and
(b) shall indicate the polling station or polling stations to which he is assigned.

(2) References in this Schedule to observers are references to observers appointed under this paragraph.

6. —

(1) When the electoral officer has received the ballot boxes and packets from all the special polling stations, he shall in the presence of each candidate wishing to attend or (if a candidate so chooses) his agent—

(a) open each ballot box and count and record the number of ballot papers in it,

(b) verify each ballot paper account, and
(c) in the case of a general election or two or more by-elections, sort the ballot papers into separate packets for each constituency.

(2) The electoral officer shall give notice in writing to the candidates of the time and place at which he will begin to count the ballot papers under this paragraph, and no person other than the candidates or (where they so choose) their agents may be present unless permitted by the electoral officer.
(3) A person not entitled to attend at the counting of ballot papers under this paragraph shall not be permitted to do so unless the electoral officer—

(a) is satisfied that the efficient counting of the ballot papers will not be impeded, and
(b) has either consulted the candidates or, as the case may be, their agents or thought it impracticable to do so.

(4) The electoral officer shall give to the candidates or, as the case may be, their agents all such reasonable facilities for overseeing the proceedings, and all such information with respect to them, as he can give them consistently with the orderly conduct of the proceedings and the discharge of his duties in connection with them.
(5) The electoral officer shall verify each ballot paper account by comparing it with the number of ballot papers recorded by him, and the unused and spoilt ballot papers in his possession and the tendered votes lists (opening and resealing the packets containing unused and spoilt ballot papers) and shall draw up a statement as to the result of the verification, which any candidate or, as the case may be, his agent may copy.
(6) In the case of a general election or two or more by-elections, each packet of ballot papers for a constituency, accompanied by a statement of the number of ballot papers, shall be sent to the place where the votes for that constituency are to be counted and the votes given on the ballot papers may, when—

(a) in the presence of the counting agents appointed under rule 30 of the parliamentary elections rules, the number of ballot papers in the packet has been counted and compared with the statement, and
(b) those ballot papers have been mixed with the ballot papers from at least one ballot box not used at a special polling station,

be counted in accordance with the parliamentary elections rules (other than rule 45(1), (1A) and (5)).
(7) In any other case, the votes given on any ballot papers counted under this paragraph may, when they have been mixed with the ballot papers from at least one ballot box not used at a special polling station, be counted in accordance with the parliamentary elections rules (other than rule 45(1), (1A) and (5)).
(8) References in this paragraph to a candidate's agent are references to his election agent or to his counting agent appointed under rule 30 of the parliamentary elections rules to attend at the counting of the votes.

7.—

(1) On the completion of the counting at a contested election, the electoral officer shall, in relation to votes cast at special polling stations, forward to the Clerk of the Crown for Northern Ireland—

(a) the ballot paper accounts and the statements of rejected ballot papers and of the result of the verification of the ballot paper accounts,
(b) the tendered votes list, the list of votes marked by the presiding officer, and the related statements,
(c) the packets of counterfoils, and
(d) the special polling lists,

endorsing on each packet a description of its contents and the date of the election to which they relate.
(2) Rules 55(2) to (4) and 59 of the parliamentary elections rules apply for the purposes of this paragraph.

PART III MODIFICATIONS OF PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS RULES

8. Subject to the rules in Part II of this Schedule, the parliamentary elections rules shall have effect in relation to special polling stations so far as applicable to them, but subject to the modifications made by this Part of this Schedule.
9. References to the election shall in the case of a general election or two or more by-elections be read as references to the elections in all the constituencies concerned in Northern Ireland and references to candidates at the election shall be construed accordingly.


10. Reference to a candidate's polling agent appointed to at atend at polling station shall be read as references to an observer assigned to that station.
11. References to the register of parliamentary electors for an election shall be read as references to the special polling list for that election.
12. Rule 5(2) shall apply to applications to vote at a special polling station and to other applications and notices about voting at such stations.
13. Rule 20(2) and (3) shall not apply.
14. Rules 23, 24 and 25(1) to (4) shall not apply.
15. Rules 28 and 29(3)(c) and (d) shall not apply.
16. Rule 30(1) to (9) shall not apply.
17. Rule 31 shall have effect as if—

(a) the reference to counting the votes were a reference to counting the ballot papers under this Schedule, and
(b) references to provisions of section 66 of the principal Act were references to those provisions as they have effect by virtue of paragraph 27 below.


18. In rule 32—

(a) paragraph (1)(a) and (e), and
(b) paragraphs (2), (3) and (4),

shall not apply and the presiding officer shall not admit a person to a special polling station as observer except on production of his appointment.
19. Rule 35(1) shall have effect as if the question that may be put under sub-paragraph (a)(i) were—"Are you the person shown in the special polling list for this election as follows?" (read the whole entry from the list.)
20. Rule 36(1) shall have effect as if the reference to a candidate or his election agent were omitted.
21. Rule 39 shall not apply.
22. Rule 40(1) shall apply as if, for sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), there were substituted a reference to a particular elector named in the special polling list.
23. Rules 44 and 45 shall not apply.

PART IV MODIFICATIONS OF REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACTS

24. The Representation of the People Acts shall have effect as if the functions of the electoral officer under this Schedule were—

(a) in the case of functions under paragraph 1(2) and (4) above, functions as registration officer, and
(b) in any other case, functions as returning officer.

25. The reference in section 53(1)(c) of the principal Act to voting by post or proxy includes a reference to voting at a special polling station.
26. Section 65(3) of the principal Act shall have effect as if the reference to counting the votes included a reference to counting the ballot papers under this Schedule.
27. Section 66 of the principal Act shall have effect as if—

(a) the duty imposed by subsection (1) were imposed also on observers,
(b)the reference to the register of electors included a reference to the special polling list, and
(c) references to the counting of the votes included a reference to counting the ballot papers under this Schedule.

28. Paragraph 5A of Schedule 2 to the principal Act shall apply to applications under paragraph 1 above.
29. The reference in section 5(5) of this Act to a polling station does not include a reference to a special polling station.
30. The references in section 11(3) of this Act to section 7 of this Act include a reference to paragraph 1 above.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1

MANNER OF VOTING

Amendments made: No. 64, in page 24, line 16, after 'kind', insert 'or'.
No. 65, in line 23, after 'kind', insert 'or'.
No. 66, in page 25, line 18, at end insert—

'(1A) Provision requiring a person applying under section 7 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 to do so in person, producing a document of a prescribed description.'.
No. 67, in line 33, after 'application', insert 'or applications'.
No. 68, in line 46, leave out
'by virtue of paragraph (a) above'.
No. 69, in line 47, after 'granted', insert
'by virtue of paragraph (a) above.'
No. 70, in page 26, line 26, after 'application', insert 'or applications'.
No. 71, in line 28, leave out from 'effect', to end of line 33 and insert—

'(a) where the proxy's application or applications were based on his entitlement as elector to vote by post, as if an application by him under section 9(4)(a) of this Act to vote by post as proxy at elections of the kind or kinds in question had been granted on that date, and
(b) where the proxy's application was based on the situation of the address to which his ballot paper was to be sent, as if an application by him under section 9(4)(b) of this Act to vote by post as proxy at parliamentary elections had been granted on that date.' —[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 3

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in page 29, line 29, after '(2)', insert—

'(a) at the end of paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the words "and, in particular, they shall, so far as is reasonable and practicable, designate as polling places only places which are accessible to electors who are disabled" and
(b) in paragraph'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 73.

Mr. Brittan: These amendments require those who are responsible for the designation of polling places at parliamentary elections in England and Wales to designate, so far as is reasonable and practicable, places which are accessible to disabled people. They were tabled in response to an undertaking given in Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). He moved two amendments. The first sought to enable disabled electors to vote at any polling station in their constituency or electoral area, and the second sought to apply to the designation of polling places the access criteria which apply under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
The sense of the debate was that the former amendment should not be pursued, and these amendments are essentially redrafts of the latter amendment. Amendments are made to subsections (2) and (3) of section 18 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Those are the provisions that govern the designation of parliamentary polling places in England, Wales and Scotland. The district or London borough council, and in Scotland the returning officer, is responsible for the designation of polling places and has to exercise the powers with a view to giving all the electors such reasonable facilities for voting as are practicable in the circumstances. The amendments add a further requirement to the effect that in particular the council or returning officer shall, so far as is reasonable and practicable, designate only places which are accessible to disabled electors. The words "reasonable


and practicable" are used in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Therefore, it is appropriate to use them in this legislation.
The amendments do not affect the designation of parliamentary polling stations in Northern Ireland, because those are governed by separate legislation.
I commend the amendents to the House.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: We welcome the Government's commitment to encourage returning officers so far as is practicable and reasonable to designate as polling stations buildings accessible to electors who are disabled. As the Home Secretary has said, this follows the commitment given in Committee to the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). They pointed out that thousands of disabled people experience great difficulty in getting to polling stations, not to mention the deterrent effect of high steps and narrow entrances and corridors at the polling station itself. Those difficulties are both unnecessary and undesirable.
It is extremely important to ensure that every citizen entitled to do so is is able to exercise his civic and political rights. We accept that postal and proxy votes are available for such individuals and that availability will be extended by the Bill. Nevertheless, as every hon. Member knows from his own experience at election time, many disabled people, especially those disabled by age infirmity, want to go to the polling station and vote in person just like other people and to feel part of the democratic process. They should be given the facility and the ability to be part of that process.
In our view, therefore, the Government should insist that all polling stations should be accessible at all times to all people, including those who are disabled. It is not unremarkable that the Government can apparently find sufficient money to extend to franchise to British citizens resident abroad but not the extra resources required to ensure that all polling stations are accessible to all disabled people so that British citizens living in this country who happen to be disabled can exercise their vote. I do not wish to sound churlish, and we in no way dissent from what the Government are doing, save to hope that they will give greater encouragement to returning officers to ensure that every polling station is accessible to the disabled so that those people can cast their votes in the same way as other citizens eligible to do so.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On behalf of the alliance, I welcome the Government's acceptance of the need for as much effort as possible to be made by returning officers to ensure that the disabled, if they so wish, can vote in person rather than having to use postal or proxy votes.
As the Home Secretary knows, the disabled are troubled by physical obstacles such as steps and slopes and —I hope that putting this on record will ensure that it goes through into the planning of polling station distribution—long distances between the entrance to the building and the polling place. Handicapped or disabled people having arrived by car or public transport sometimes have to make a phenomenal effort to get to the part of the building where they have to vote. This applies particularly in schools. Even if it means less use of schools, if they are

organised in such a way as to make a polling station close to the entrance difficult to arrange, I hope that a variety of premises will be considered so that at all times and in all circumstances the disabled are able to exercise their vote in person. As the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) has said, they should be able to exercise their franchise as they would wish, to be treated as normal members of society and not discriminated against in any way.
The amendments are good amendments and I hope that they will be widely interpreted in the spirit in which they have been introduced and accepted by the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 73, in page 29, line 30, at end insert—
'(1A) In subsection (3) of that section at the end of paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the words "and, in particular, he shall, so far as is reasonable and practicable, designate as polling places only places which are accessible to electors who are disabled".'.—[Mr. Britian.]

Mr. Bermingham: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 35, line 3, after subsection (7) insert—
'(7A) A meeting shall not be deemed to be a public meeting for the purpose of this section unless not less than two thirds of the seats at such a meeting are open to any members of the public who attend while they are unoccupied, provided that a member of the public may be excluded from such a meeting if the person by or on whose behalf the meeting is convened believes on reasonable grounds that such a member is attending for the purposes of causing disorder.'.
I am moving the amendment on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who is unable to be in his place this evening. The amendment also stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) who also cannot be here; he has a bad cold.
The wording of the amendment explains the worry that some of us have. The issue was canvassed in Committee, when the Minister's reply suggested that if he could find a way of solving the mischief with which the amendment deals he would accept it.
This is the last opportunity that we shall have for some time to debate the subject. The mischief with which the amendment deals worries hon. Members on both sides of the House. That mischief concerns a public meeting which is not really a public meeting, held during an election campaign. Unfortunately, the police cannot attend such a meeting under the present law.
I need not say much to identify the political party—the National Front — which is good at holding closed meetings which are said to be public meetings but which, in fact, are not public. They are held behind closed doors and the public are not admitted. The object of such meetings is to disrupt and cause trouble, often of a racist or religious kind, because the object of that nasty little organisation is the absolute negation of democracy.
If, during an election campaign, a meeting was designated to be a public meeting, it would, under the amendment, have to be such, with two thirds of the seats being available to members of the public. We would thereby stop the mischief. If, at a public meeting of that sort, there were racist, disruptive, anti-Semitic or anti-religious comment, the police would have right of entry and prosecutions could be brought against the perpetrators of the nastiness.
The Minister may say in reply that he hopes that a solution to the matter will be found. In the meantime, I rest


content on the wording of the amendment. If the Minister replies that the search for a solution to this nastiness will continue beyond the passage of the Bill, I will beg leave to withdraw the amendment, having placed on record the fact that we continue to be worried about the matter.
We believe in open democracy, with the public having the right to attend public meetings the purpose of which is not to purvey dirt, filth and smear but to purvey to the public at large the intentions of the political party.

Mr. Mellor: I gave a full account of our views in Committee, when I made it clear that I was not in favour of the election entitlements to public rooms being abused. I do not believe, any more than the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) does, that the amendment would provide the solution. However, we shall continue to consider the matter, not least in the review of public order law that is going on, and any further thoughts on the subject will be gratefully received.

Mr. Bermingham: In the light of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 35, line 4 leave out from beginning to 'Subsections' in line 16 and insert—
'38. For section 96 (schools and rooms for local election meetings) there shall be substituted—

"Schools and Rooms for Local Election Meetings

96. — (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a candidate at a local government election is entitled for the purpose of holding public meetings in furtherance of his candidature to the use free of charge at reasonable times between the last day on which notice of the election may be published in accordance with rules made under section 36 or, in Scotland, section 42 above and the day preceding the day of election of—

(a) a suitable room in the premises of a school to which this section applies;
(b) a meeting room to which this section applies.

(2) This section applies—

(a) in England and Wales, to a county or voluntary school situated in the electoral area for which the candidate is standing (or, if there is no such school in the area, in any such school in an adjacent electoral area) or in a parish or community, as the case may be, in part comprised in that electoral area; and
(b) in Scotland, to any school (not being an independent school within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980) situated in the electoral area for which the candidate is standing (or, if there is no such school in the area, in any such school in an adjacent electoral area).

(3) This section applies—

(a) in England and Wales, to any meeting room situated in the electoral area for which the candidate is standing or in a parish or community, as the case may be, in part comprised in that electoral area, the expense of maintaining which is payable wholly or mainly out of public funds or out of any rate, or by a body whose expenses are so payable;
(b) in Scotland, to any meeting room the expense of maintaining which is payable by the council of a region, islands area or district.

(4)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time Government amendment No. 89.

Mr. Mellor: These amendments are designed to cure a small anomaly. Candidates have the right to use local authority meeting rooms as well as school rooms at parliamentary elections throughout Great Britain and at

local government elections in Scotland, but not at local government elections in England and Wales. It is proposed to give candidates at local government elections in England and Wales the right to use meeting rooms as well as school rooms.

Mr. Beith: I welcome the amendment, which improves the state of the law. It is important that we maintain provisions for the availability of schools and public meeting rooms for candidates. When there are several candidates seeking rooms in the same locality, it can be difficult for them to find rooms in which to hold election meetings. There has been a decline in some areas in the number of public halls and public rooms that are available. A number of traditional venues are no longer available for that purpose.
Sometimes education authorities, local authorities and even, dare one say, caretakers are unhappy about the extra burdens imposed on them during elections. It is an essential part of our democratic process that facilities should be available for candidates to conduct such meetings. The inconvenience is a very small price to pay for that provision.
With regard to the use of schools, the meetings that candidates hold are far less of an inconvenience than is polling day itself, because those meetings do not interfere with the normal conduct of the school. Indeed, they are often advantageous in that they bring into the school people who see the work that children have put on the walls. Come polling day, if returning officers are not careful to look for alternative accommodation, the too frequent and too ready use of schools can pose considerable inconvenience for the conduct of education, particularly in special schools. I welcome an earlier amendment that will mean that returning officers will have to be more careful in their choice of accommodation. The availability of public rooms for meetings is an essential part of our democratic process.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in page 36, line 16, leave out from 'section' to end of line 17 and insert '136 (security for costs)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government Nos. 77 to 81 and Government amendment No. 91.

Mr. Mellor: The aim of these amendments is to allow the rules of court to prescribe extended periods in relation to the security for the costs of trial of an election petition. I hope that the amendments, which are in keeping with the thoughts of the parties on this matter, will be acceptable to the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 77, in page 36, line 18, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'subsection (2)'.
No. 78, in page 36, line 22, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'subsection (2)'.
No. 79, in page 36, line 23, leave out 'and'.
No. 80 in page 36, line 24, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'subsection (2)'.
No. 81, in page 36, line 30, at end insert
'and
(d) the following provisions shall cease to have effect—

(i) in subsection (3) the words "not exceeding five days after the presentation of the petition";


(ii) in subsection (4) the words "not exceeding five days after service of the notice";
(iii) subsection 5(b);
(iv) in subsection (7) the words "not exceeding five days".'.—[Mr. Britten.]

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 82, in page 41, line 27, leave out from 'stations)' to end of line 28 and insert
'for the words from "a notice" onwards there shall be substituted the words "the notice 'Vote for one candidate only. Put no other mark on the ballot paper, or your vote may not be counted.'".'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 84, 86, 88 and 92.

Mr. Mellor: At an earlier stage I was foolish enough to involve myself in a battle of semantics with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who was then able to pray in aid the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), and I was severely worsted. To show that I have profited from the experience, I bring forward amendments to do what that particularly effective combination of hon. Gentlemen wished me to do.

Mr. Beith: I very much welcome the Minister's conversion. At an earlier stage and an incautious moment he thought us pedantic when we sought to ensure that the words on the ballot paper conveyed to the electorate what they were intended to convey. I hope that when he goes home and settles down to a hot toddy and a pile of back numbers of the Conservative Monthly News, getting a much earlier night than he might otherwise have got, he will sit back and realise that he has improved the use of the English language on ballot papers from that which was originally proposed. That will not be a bad thing.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 42, line 22, leave out first 'on' and insert 'not later than'.
This is another attempt to ingratiate myself with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed who was rightly concerned at the absence of rules for the return of deposits. We provided in the Bill that it should be done on what would effectively have been the Monday following a Thursday poll. We became aware that that might preclude a returning officer who was particularly efficient from returning the money on the Friday. The substitution of "not later than" for "on" will enable a particularly diligent returning officer to return the money before the weekend. Certainly he would have to return it the day after the weekend. I hope that the amendment commends itself to the House.

Mr. Beith: Once again, I find myself thanking the Minister. When the Bill was introduced, the rules on the returning of deposits were unclear and the return could be delayed for a considerable time. We are now talking about a larger deposit, although nothing like as large as the Government intended originally to introduce. However, the prompt return of the deposit is obviously desirable and important and I very much welcome the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 84, in page 42, line 34, leave out from 'words' to 'in' and insert
"VOTE FOR ONE CANDIDATE ONLY" '
No. 86, line 39, leave out from 'direction' to 'and' in line 40 and insert
"VOTE FOR ONE CANDIDATE ONLY".'.
No. 88, in page 43, line 22, leave out 'only one candidate, and put' and insert 'one candidate only. Put' —[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 4

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 89, in page 45, leave out line 48.
No. 90, in page 46, line 52, leave out '191(a)' and insert '191(1)(a)'.
No. 91, in page 46, line 8, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 136, in subsection (3), the words "not exceeding five days after the presentation of the petition", in subsection (4) the words from "not" to "notice", subsection (5)(b) and in subsection (7) the words not exceeding five days".'.
No. 92, in page 47, leave out lines 14 and 15.—[Mr. Mellor.]
Order for Third Reading read—[Queen's Consent signified.]

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
When we introduced the Bill we had four main objectives: first, an extension of the franchise to British citizens resident abroad; secondly, changes in absent voting arrangements to enfranchise those away on holiday on polling day; thirdly, an increase in the deposit to discourage the frivolous candidate, with a reduction in the threshold to protect the interests of the smaller parties; finally, to take the opportunity of making all the necessary but less spectacular changes in the electoral machinery which have been on the stocks since the last major Representation of the People Bill in 1969.
The Bill establishes the principle that British citizens outside the public sector should not be disfranchised, any more than those within it, because they are resident abroad on the qualifying date. Many of my hon. Friends believe that the five-year period, the maximum length of a Parliament, during which the Bill allows British citizens to qualify as overseas electors is not long enough. I have great sympathy for that view. The Government originally proposed a longer period, but I thought that in introducing a new principle of this kind it was right that we should proceed at a deliberate pace in accordance with the maximum degree of acquiescence, if not approval. I believe that with the passage of time the anxieties raised on these provisions will prove unfounded, and I very much hope that it will not be long before it will be possible to extend the five-year limit. We shall have to see how the changes that we are introducing this year fare in practice.
Our debates on absent voting have concentrated on the special position of Northern Ireland. The Government are happy to have moved amendments putting Northern Ireland absent voters on the same footing as those in Great Britain, with the reserve power that can be exercised should the need arise. Of course, we all hope that the need will not arise. The main achievement is to have replaced the indefensible provisions which were previously on the statute book, which had the effect of imposing a major civic disability on those who committed no greater sin than to be away on holiday on polling day. In today's circumstances, with increasing numbers going on holiday, and with a tendency for elections to take place during the


summer rather more frequently than was once the case, it would have been indefensible to leave the anomaly on the statute book.
Having considered these matters over the years, and most recently prior to the present occasion when I was Minister of State, Home Office, it is a matter of great pleasure and pride to be able to put forward and see entering shortly, I hope, the statute book a provision which enables those who are on holiday to vote, notwithstanding their absence from their normal residence on polling day.
On the question of the deposit, we are glad to have found in £500 a figure which seems to command general support. In my view, the figure is very much on the low side, and that of course was the view of the Select Committee. It should not be regarded as a final figure. It would be wrong for us to allow a long period of time to elapse before a change is made.
Any change that is made should be made deliberately, and it will have to be made by fresh legislation, but, in general, the principle which the Government will support is that the deposit should rise in line with decreases in the value of money—I hope that those will be gradual. It is wrong that we should wait for so many years, as we have since 1918, before looking at this important matter again. The figure of £500 is reasonable for today, but it is not a matter to pass unnoticed again for so long.
The main changes to which I have referred — important as they are—take up less than half the pages of the Bill. The fact that so many of the smaller changes have gone unopposed is a tribute to those who took part in the consultations on behalf of the political parties and the local authority associations. We leave the detailed provisions of the Representation of the People Acts, the raw material from which our democracy is constructed, in a better state than we found them.
It has been most useful for all involved, in the House and outside, to go through the Bill's provisions and try to bring them up to date and to deal with a number of matters which are individually of little importance but collectively put democracy into better shape than it was before. Some of the provisions are of considerable importance to individuals, such as the one that we have been discussing this evening about the attempt to ensure that wherever possible disabled people can vote in person, not just by post.
I should like to thank all those who have helped to make these debates a success and to secure an outcome which does not give anyone everything that he wants, but which gives a substantial boost to our democracy by modernising the process of democracy.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has shouldered most of the burden on the Government side, and we owe him a great debt for the care with which he has handled the Bill, for the courtesy with which he has handled the amendments and for his readiness to respond constructively to points put to the Government, from whatever quarter they have come. He can take great pride in and credit for that achievement.
My hon. Friend will join me in thanking the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and his hon. Friends for helping to make the debates for the most part useful and constructive and for securing a high degree of consensus, although I recognise, and would not wish to put words into his mouth, that in some cases he feels that he is making the best of a bad job rather than securing the objective that he would have wished.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has, I fear, but not to his surprise, failed to persuade us on this occasion of the merits of proportional representation, but he has raised a number of valuable detailed points. I hope he feels that we have gone as far as we can to meet them.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has intervened in our debates with his usual perspicacity. I am grateful to him for articulating not just the interests of Northern Ireland but many more broader and important questions that we have needed to consider.
I should like to thank those of my hon. Friends who have intervened. Their interventions have been most welcome and have assisted us greatly.
It is with those words that I wish the Bill godspeed in its passage to another place. We look forward to its early return from there and entry on to the statute book.

Mr. Kaufman: When the Bill was introduced last autumn, the Opposition had serious reservations about it. Our principal misgivings related to four issues. The first was the introduction of expatriate voting, and the introduction of that regrettable innovation for a period of seven years not only for former voters, but also for minors who never had a vote and for people who did not necessarily intend to return to this country. Secondly, we were concerned about the proposed increase of the election deposit to £1,000, even though with a 5 per cent. threshold for retention. Thirdly, we were worried about the reduction of polling time in parliamentary elections by one hour with the proposal that polls should close at 9 pm instead of at 10 pm. Fourthly, we were concerned about restrictions on absent voting in Northern Ireland compared with Great Britain.
It was because of these four major issues that we 'voted against the Bill on Second Reading, and warned the Government that they would have all-out opposition to the Bill if they insisted that it go through with its contents as introduced at that time. The Government then, belatedly but sensibly, decided that they would negotiate with us. The outcome has been major changes to the Bill made directly through those negotiations.
On expatriate voting, the duration has been reduced from seven to five years. Under-18s will now not obtain this franchise on reaching the age of 18. Those applying for this franchise will have to commit themselves to not remaining outside the country permanently. The deposit will still go up, and we regret that, but to £500 instead of to £1,000, and the new threshold will be 5 per cent. The closing time for polling in parliamentary elections will remain at 10 pm. Northern Ireland absent votes in all essential respects will be granted on the same basis as in Great Britain, and—an added gain in our view—absent votes for those temporarily out of the country will be exercised by proxy rather than by post, thus reducing the chances of tampering with the ballot.
In addition to those changes that we have achieved on the four major issue that concerned us, we have secured changes, or firm Government commitment to change, on a number of subsidiary but important issues. Provisions for counter-signature for absent voters are to be simplified and clarified, and the right of wardens of old people's homes and sheltered accommodation to be counter-signatories is to be considered favourably by the Government. Absent votes are to be available for electors taken ill or otherwise


becoming physically incapacitated after the final date for claiming a postal vote. There is to be a sensible extention of the list of dies non in the election timetable, and there is to be a reduction of the proposed new amounts required as security for costs for court actions in relation to elections. There is no doubt that these changes improve the Bill considerably.
I should like to thank my hon. Friends who have taken an especially active part in the Bill's progress. They have participated actively, constructively and by general consultation within our party in order to put forward our amendments. It is satisfactory to us that the Government have responded so much to our amendments. I join the Secretary of State in the tribute that he has paid to the Under-Secretary for the way in which he has responded to our amendments.
The efforts of my hon. Friends and myself have resulted in important and beneficial changes in what are the most fundamental laws in any democracy, the laws governing the conduct of elections.—[Interruption.] It is very nice to see the Liberal party here in quite remarkable strength. I advise you, Mr. Speaker, to take this unrivalled opportunity of memorising their faces.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Representation of the People Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Major.]
Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Kaufman: It is an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, which may not easily arise again for the remainder of this Parliament.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It will arise all too often.

Mr. Kaufman: Too often, certainly; however often, too often.
The efforts of my hon. Friends, as I have already said, have resulted in important and beneficial changes in the most fundamental laws in any democracy — the laws governing the conduct of elections. We on the Labour Benches still profoundly regret that the Bill includes any provision for expatriate voting, and that there is any increase in the deposit. But we have done our best during the debate to speak for democracy, regardless of party advantage, and I believe that we have won victories for democracy. It is in that spirit that we now send the Bill on its way.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In the few sentences with which I shall detain the House I deliberately leave out of account the matter of disagreement which was dealt with by Division earlier in today's sitting—a matter which my hon. Friends and I still hope to see resolved in some way before the Bill reaches the statute book.
It fell to me in 1979 to pronounce the last words for my hon. Friends in this House upon the last major preceding act of justice to Northern Ireland, which enabled the electors of Northern Ireland to be represented in this House by the same number of seats as if they were resident in Great Britain. That event is linked with the events of this Bill by an important fact. Both those decisions were taken virtually unanimously by the House. They were taken in

co-operation between the Government and Her Majesty's Opposition and virtually with no dissent in any part of the Chamber. That is how, as long as the position of Northern Ireland in the Union is not wholly secure, every advance needs to be made in the government of that Province. It needs to be the united and unanimous act of this House of Parliament, and therefore of the people of this country.
I hope to live to see the day when constituencies in Northern Ireland will return Members for two or more of the political parties which carry on the political debate in the United Kingdom, for then and then alone will Northern Ireland have entered into the full inheritance of her membership of the United Kingdom. But until that happens it is necessary that progress towards full justice and full recognition of the status of Northern Ireland and its people should be made by evident consent—and it is the evident consent which has accompanied the justice done to Northern Ireland in this Bill which, in the eyes of the people of that Province, is its greatest glory.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) inevitably provokes me by some of his remarks. I am bound to say that he would not have detained the House unduly long had he listed those of his hon. Friends who contributed so helpfully to the proceedings on the Bill. They are a gallant few. They are almost outnumbered by the number of my hon. Friends who assisted me in the course of the proceedings on the Bill, and to whom I express my thanks.
Had I not been firmly committed to the belief that such Bills should be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House and not upstairs, a great many of our proceedings on the Bill would have been upstairs—and that with the consent of one of the other parties in this House.

Mr. Kaufman: It was our motion, which suggested that the Bill be considered on the Floor of the House, that was carried by the House. The hon. Gentleman has a short memory.

Mr. Beith: I remember very well the discussions that preceded that motion. How much longer our proceedings would have been if the Government had not come at a slightly late stage to realise that consensus has its merits. Consensus is not a fashionable doctrine in Government circles at the moment, but the Home Secretary wisely grasped it. Although hon. Members have not got everything that they wanted, the Bill is much improved. I applaud the Home Secretary's grasping the consensus. It has shortened proceedings on the Bill immeasurably. We might have been here in August if such a decision had not been taken.
The Bill represents improvements in several important respects. Like the Home Secretary, I believe that the provision of postal votes for people who are on holiday during elections is long overdue. It is quite wrong that citizens should have been prevented from exercising their vote because of long-standing holiday plans. That was especially true for the 1983 general election.
Unlike the Labour party, I believe that it is right to provide people who live overseas, who are citizens of the United Kingdom and who have an interest in its affairs with the opportunity to cast a vote. Many are serving Britain in capacities other than those of civil servants and as members of the Armed Forces, who had the vote


previously. We warmly welcome their right to cast a vote, but it is severely restricted and there will be much disappointment among those who thought that they would have a vote for some time but who will be lucky to have a vote at one general election.

Mr. Brittan: It is a start.

Mr. Beith: The Home Secretary believes that it is the thin end of the wedge. If it is, we shall help him drive the wedge a little further.
Other useful provisions ensure that the government of Britain can be carried on in circumstances that we do not want to dwell on. There are significant improvements in the Bill as compared with that which was originally presented to us. Perhaps the most obvious concerns deposits. The Government originally proposed that the deposit should be £1,000. That proposal was supported by Labour Members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. However, the Government overlooked the strength of our opposition and the sudden conversion of the Labour party, which was perhaps influenced by experience. The Labour party lost 119 deposits at the 1983 election. I must assure the House that, as amended, the Bill saves the Labour party £56,000 on the basis of the 1983 election results.
A financial deposit is not a sensible test of whether a candidate is legitimate or serious. That is why we have argued for the provision of more signatures than are at present required. Some Conservative Members share that view. The reduction of the deposit from £1,000 to £500 is a welcome improvement, as is the reduction of the threshold. We ought not to discourage people from standing at elections. However unattractive or repugnant we might find the views of some extreme organisations and parties, people should be encouraged to stand as candidates and not be given the excuse that they cannot put their views to the electorate. Even the Bill in its present form might restrict the ability of some groups to field candidates. I do not believe that it will in any way restrict frivolous or commercially minded candidates, who will find the money anyway.
There have been detailed improvements, and the Under-Secretary of State has made several concessions. I welcome the accommodation and helpfulness that he has shown on many detailed matters. We have also resisted some things that might have been included. A section of the Labour party wanted to introduce compulsory voting and would have required every elector to furnish a suitable excuse to the returning officer if he failed to turn up at the polling station. We have successfully resisted the vision of the south Yorkshire Socialist republic writ large, in which electors have to explain themselves to public officials. That has been successfully resisted, so it is not part of the Bill to which we shall give a Third Reading.
However, the Bill retains drawbacks, which are mainly omissions, of which I shall mention two. One is the issue on which the widest consensus—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to call the hon. Gentleman to order, but he should discuss on Third Reading only what is in the Bill.

Mr. Beith: I shall seek to comply with your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
We have sought throughout the Bill to work on the basis of consensus, and I commend the Home Secretary for his

grasping of that doctrine. However, had he grasped the consensus between all parties that something should be done about multiple registration, the Bill would have been better. We shall have to wait for a better Bill to ensure that people are properly represented—a Bill that ensures that they are represented under a fair electoral system. I look forward to supporting that Bill from the Government Benches.

Mr. Bermingham: When the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) comes to draft amendments he can sometimes educate Ministers, and I congratulate him on that. However, when it comes to political intention and ability, he seems to be short on experience. Listening to the will of the people, particularly with regard to the question of how we elect candidates, is not a bad idea. The system that we have had for a number of years, that of single Member constituencies, is one that the people at large feel we should follow. Perhaps this nonsense that we get periodically, which is sometimes called the "We was robbed nonsense" will cease with the passage of the Bill to another place.
Although the Bill goes to the other place, it goes with a number of reservations. I wish to put on record the fact that I hope that the other place will look with some care at the issue of the deposit. I know that the House eventually reached a consensus, but some of us believe in the right of small parties and individuals to stand, and the imposition of a £500 deposit is an unnecessary impediment. After all, in a democracy, any man should be able to stand in his own right. He should not necessarily be debarred by the payment of cash.
Similarly, on a much more human note, although there have been welcome amendments to the Bill regarding the disabled, it still does not get over the basic problem raised by an amendment that dealt with the handicapped. I said when we debated that amendment that I could not see that it was beyond the wit of man to find a solution so that the severely handicapped could vote at the physically nearest polling station, although that might on occasions be in another ward or constituency.
If we are able to make provision for those who serve on polling day, either as polling officials or police officers so that they can vote away from their normal polling station, it is amazing that we cannot find a solution to enable the severely handicapped to vote in a similar way. If we are a humane and tolerant society, and I should like to believe that we still are, we should be able to find a solution to that problem. I hope that the other place will look at this and perhaps the Ministers who serve there will continue to search for a solution to the problem. It concerns only a small number of people; perhaps only a few thousand, but if we are a true democracy we should find a solution to the problem of those few thousand, because it is worth it. It shows that we wish every person to have the right to vote personally.
I hope that the other place will consider with care not only this matter but the point that I made on an earlier amendment which I withdrew, which is that we should continue to search for a solution to prevent the slur upon our democracy which sometimes occurs at these closed "public meetings" when small factions seek to use such occasions to spread the concept of racism, anti-semitism


an the other aims that are pursued by the National Front. That kind of evil in our society needs to be stamped out, so that our society may remain open and democratic.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PETITION

Concorde (Nuisance)

Mr. David Penhaligon: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 3,000 Cornish electors, most of whom are my constituents:
The humble petition of the people of Cornwall showeth that in the winter months Concorde causes supersonic bangs that disturb the undersigned petitioners.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do implore the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to take steps to alleviate the nuisance caused by Concorde.
The petition is signed by 3,000 people and it has my wholehearted support. The boom-booms are a substantial imposition and cause a great deal of annoyance and some damage. The Minister clearly has it within his power to terminate this interruption to Cornish life forthwith and my petitioners hope that he will do so.
To lie upon the Table.

British Engineers (Nigeria)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. — [Mr. Neubert.]

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am very grateful indeed to have the opportunity to raise on this Adjournment debate the plight of two of my constituents who have been detained in Nigeria since 20 May 1984. Although this matter has received some publicity, it has not been fully aired in this House. The time has come when a number of points of concern should be aired and the Government's view upon them expressed in public.
I shall give the background to the circumstances and express as strongly as I can how I feel about the plight of these two constituents and how their plight might affect relationships between our two countries — relationships which are longstanding and which I hope will continue in the future, despite the present difficulties. These two constituents have been detained for nine months in Nigeria. There is concern as to how they are being treated and when they may be able to return home. Their wives live in my constituency. Their children have not seen their fathers for nine months. The human dimension has reached the stage where additional pressure needs to be applied. I hope the Minister will be able to assure the House that the difficulties which have been experienced, particularly since Christmas, have not only been recounted to the Nigerians, but that they have been led to understand that they are now in danger of losing the goodwill of this country if the detention of my constituents continues.
There is concern as to whether there is a political factor involved in their detention. I hope that this is not so. Nevertheless, it causes me concern. May I therefore ask the Minister to make it clear to the House that the Government give very high priority indeed to ensuring that the process of law in Nigeria, which has had too many interruptions and hiccups, is brought to a quick and speedy conclusion and that any suggestion that my constituents should be subjected to any kind of political pressure is firmly rejected. Therefore, I suggest right at the beginning of my speech, because there is no point in beating about the bush, that the plight of my constituents must not be connected with the trials that have taken place in this country or with the detention in Britain of Nigerians and of Britons in Nigeria.
In particular, we have had in Britain the trial of those involved in the attempt to kidnap Mr. Dikko. It is important that the Government make it clear to the Nigerian Government that, regardless of how they feel about Mr. Dikko and his kind and the trial of the people involved in his kidnapping, people who are in no way connected with that should not be made to suffer for any kind of political reasons.
Britain should not be harbouring the likes of Mr. Dikko, and I should like to see the back of him and all his works from this country. I understand how the Nigerians feel about that. But I cannot stress too highly that people who have had no connection whatever with those circumstances — my constituents and their families — should not be made to suffer on that account. Indeed, they have already suffered too much.
The constituents in question are Mr. Angus Paterson, who lives in Inverurie, and Mr. Kenneth Clarke, who lives in Blackburn. Both those towns are in my constituency.

The two men were employed as helicopter engineers by Bristow Helicopters. They were operating under a contract, under which they worked in Nigeria for two months and then returned home to Scotland for two months, until they were arrested on 20 May 1984.
They were arrested after they had serviced an aircraft which immediately afterwards left Nigeria illegally. Since that date they have maintained their complete ignorance of the illegal intentions of the male pilot and his female co-pilot who left on that particular day. I understand that not only are the pilot and his co-pilot back in Britain, but that they have subsequently married and that their happiness in no way detracts from the fact that two innocent people remain detained in Nigeria.
Sheer common sense would suggest that anybody accused, as these men are, of conspiring to steal, and stealing, an aircraft, would not have stayed behind if that had been the reality of what they were doing.
Subsequently, Messrs Clarke and Paterson were detained for many months at police headquarters in Lagos before any charges were brought. They first appeared in court on 12 November, having been originally arrested on 20 May. On that date they were remanded until 23 November and they appeared in court again on 5 December, when bail was refused despite a number of sworn affidavits.
The trial then resumed on 14 December and was adjourned on 21 December, just before Christmas, until 18 January. On 18 January the prosecution withdrew the original charge and the men were released but were immediately rearrested.
After a further delay in which they and their families suffered considerable doubt, uncertainty and depression those charges to which I have already referred were laid—conspiring to steal an aircraft and stealing an aircraft. On 12 February a new trial date was set for 19 March.
Immediately after that, on 15 February, the men were transferred to Kirri Kirri prison, a maximum security prison, where they are now. The first consular visit to them in that prison, I understood, took place today, although I have since clarified that and I understand that a brief visit took place some days ago.
I am sure that we can all appreciate that no maximum security prison is a pleasant place to be. I understand that they are not in comfortable conditions compared to those in which they had been confined hitherto.
Let me at this point pay tribute—I am sure on behalf of the two men—first to the consular officials who, up until the point that they were transferred to Kirri Kirri prison, visited them regularly and gave them practical and, perhaps more importantly, moral support and regular contact. I know that they have continued to work hard to do that.
I also pay tribute to their fellow employees and their company Bristow Helicopters who have supported them throughout and have also ensured that they have had regular visits and practical support. In circumstances where they are faced with so much uncertainty and emotional pressure, such factors cannot be measured, but they are extremely important. I know that my constituents will want their gratitude to be expressed to the people who have visited the men.
I remain concerned about the conditions in which they are detained. I understand that a number of other British prisoners are also detained in that prison in conditions which are extremely unsatisfactory.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I add, in similar terms to the way in which my hon. Friend is making his case on behalf of his constituents, the name of a man whose family are my constituents and whose last base in Britain was in Bermondsey. I refer to Ronald Goslitski, whose case has been taken up with the Foreign Office.
Again there is a charge pending. The man was arrested and has been held in Benin prison in Nigeria since June of last year. The same concern is expressed on behalf of his family that his time there is uncertain and that perhaps justice is not being done as quickly as it might be done. There needs to be a speedy resolution, divorced from all political overtones.
I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will accept that that concern should be added to the concern that he is expressing and be taken up appropriately by the Foreign Office.

Mr. Bruce: I accept my hon. Friend's plea on behalf of his constituent. Naturally, these circumstances cause concern, but I must make it clear that I also recognise that a judicial process is in hand and that a trial date has been set.
I hope that the value of having a debate in advance of the trial is to make it clear that I and the families of the two men have forborne to make public play of their plight until now because we were anxious to ensure that the judicial process followed its proper course. However, the conditions that have arisen over the last three months, with hiccups over their trial, over the charges and so forth, have given cause for concern, as has their transfer to a maximum security prison. The stage has been reached where I am anxious to make it clear through the Minister and direct to the Nigerian Government that if the matter is not resolved speedily and efficiently on 19 March, Britain's relationship with and public opinion in Britain about the Nigerian judicial process will come into question. I hope that the Nigerian authorities would not want that to happen.
An additional matter of concern is that since the men were transferred to the maximum security prison they have been detained under section 2 of the Military Government Order, which I understand is known as the Decree 2 State Security (Detention of Persons). It could mean that, regardless of the outcome of any trial, they are detained indefinitely. I hope that the Government will press with all the authority at their disposal that these men should not be detained in any other way than that related to the specific circumstances of the charges which have been made.
The Nigerian judicial system is modelled on Britain's. It is important in those circumstances that that should mean that the men now get a quick, fair trial with no further delays or hiccups on 19 March and the subsequent days.
It is important to make it clear that British public opinion expects that after that, regardless of the outcome, the men will be returned home and reunited with their wives and families. I pay my tribute to their wives and families, who have been put in very difficult circumstances. The men's wives are very capable and intelligent women, who have borne what they have had to bear in the last nine months bravely and well. However, the uncertainties of the last three months have put

considerable pressure on them. If the matter is not resolved speedily, that pressure will begin to bear in an extremely serious way.
It is not necessary for me to point out that the consequences of the delay mean that these fathers of young families have been denied any contact with their children over virtually a full year of Christmas, birthdays, and the usual family festivities. In common humanity, the authorities should recognise that, especially if they think about applying political pressure.
I hope that the Minister can give an assurance tonight that the Government will impress on the Nigerian authorities that, important as the restoration of good relations between Great Britain and Nigeria is, they do not allow the manipulation of the judicial system for political ends. I suggest that that has not yet happened, but if it does, the Government should make it clear that it is intolerable and that commerce is of no value if our citizens are abused by the citizens of any other country. We must make it clear that our relations with another country depend on the fair, honest and objective treatment of our citizens.
The Minister should make it clear to the Nigerian authorities that whether the men are convicted or acquitted at their trial on 19 March, they and their families have suffered too long and are entitled to expect speedy, efficient and fair treatment and to return home to be reunited with their families.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Renton): I fully understand the reasons that led the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) to raise the matter of his two constituents, who are engineers and detained in Nigeria, in this Adjournment debate. I pay tribute to the determination with which he has been protecting the interests of his constituents during the past months and the time of their detention. It would also be appropriate to pay tribute to other hon. Members who have taken an interest in the case, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), who has corresponded with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) also briefly raised the question of his constituent, Mr. Goslitski.
I understand that Mr. Goslitski has been detained since June 1984 in Benin city prison accused of corruption. There have been regular consular visits to him, but it is rather difficult because of the distance, and access has sometimes been refused. We are, however, affording him all the usual consular protection. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me further about Mr. Goslitski, I shall certainly give him the most up-to-date information that I have.
The protection of the rights of British citizens, as the hon. Member for Gordon will accept, who run into difficulties abroad is a primary function of our diplomatic missions. The detention of a British citizen in a foreign land naturally raises a great deal of public and parliamentary anxiety when the period of detention without trial is prolonged or the conditions of detention are unsatisfactory. His two constituents, Mr. Kenneth Clarke and Mr. Angus Paterson, who are employed by Bristow Helicopters in Nigeria, have been held in Lagos since 19 May 1984.
The Government share the growing anxiety at the delay in bringing their case to a conclusion — which, understandably, is causing great distress to their families. I fully understand the strength of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the position of the wives and close members of the families. Their distress has been heightened by the recent uncertainty surrounding the case. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have made our concern abundantly clear to the Nigerian authorities on numerous occasions and at the highest level.
Most recently, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made that clear when he saw the Nigerian acting high commissioner in London on 24 January. There has been intense diplomatic effort in London and Lagos to secure progress in the case. I know that the Nigerian authorities are also aware of the level of public anxiety about the matter, not least from the letters of relatives and friends, which the Nigerian acting high commissioner has told us he has received.
I fully understand and sympathise with the feelings of the two families and nothing that I can say today will alter the anguish and frustration that inevitably results from such prolonged and enforced separation. I want them to know, however — perhaps the hon. Member for Gordon will pass this on—that the Government will continue to do all that we can to see that the case is brought to a speedy and satisfactory conclusion and that in the meantime the conditions in which the two men are held are the best that we can achieve.
As the hon. Gentleman recognised, we now have a firm date — 19 March — for the commencement of the trial. This was confirmed to our high commission in Lagos on 12 February after representations had been made to a senior judge in the Ikeja judicial division to which the case was transferred in January. The high commission also obtained confirmation that the men would face two charges—conspiracy to steal an aircraft, and stealing the aircraft.
Clearly, it is not for us to comment directly on the charges themselves any more than we should expect any other Government to question proceedings in our courts. Conscious as I am of the anguish of the men's wives and children, however, I sincerely hope that the trial will result in a speedy and fair end to this most unfortunate episode. I repeat that the Government will do all that we can to achieve that end.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of what he described as political pressure and specifically a possible link with the request for the extradition of Mr. Dikko from this country. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no evidence to suggest that the delays in this case are in any way linked with recent developments concerning Mr. Dikko's status in the United Kingdom or the trial of his abductors, and I entirely agree that any such link would be utterly unacceptable to the Government and people of this country. I am sure that the Nigerian authorities realise and accept that.
I believe that the delays in this case are the result of the pace at which the judicial system moves rather than anything more sinister. In all fairness, we must concede that we have similar problems in the United Kingdom at times. The conduct of the forthcoming trial will, I hope, vindicate that opinion. An official from our high commission will, of course, be in court to observe the proceedings.
As the hon. Gentleman said, this case has a somewhat unusual history. The two men were arrested on 19 May 1984 and eventually brought to court on 23 November on a charge of conspiracy to steal an aircraft. Five court appearances followed, at the last of which, on 18 January, the prosecution withdrew the charges and the men were released, only to be rearrested as they left the court. That development naturally caused great concern and representations were made at once to the Attorney-General's office in Lagos, but I am informed that such a development, although uncommon, is not in conflict with Nigerian law. As I have said, the date for the new trial has now been set and we must await the outcome.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has maintained close contact throughout the period with the two men's families, with their company, Bristow Helicopters, and with the hon. Member for Gordon. I greatly appreciate the hon. Gentleman's tribute to our consular officials in Lagos. As he knows, the consular section of our high commission in Lagos has provided regular visits to Mr. Clarke and Mr. Paterson and has been very active in trying to ensure that in all the circumstances they have been detained in as good conditions as possible.
It is true that the men were transferred to Kirri Kirri prison in Lagos on 15 February from a more favourable regime and that detention at Kirri Kirri was authorised under decree No. 2. The high commission has obtained an assurance from the Attorney-General that the men's trial will in any case proceed as planned, on 19 March, and we have no reason to believe that that will not resolve matters once and for all.
I am informed that the men are physically well and that their morale is as high as can be expected. A high commission officer was able to visit them on 20 February and again yesterday, 26 February. We have also been able to obtain today authority for regular visits every Tuesday and Friday by a representative of the high commission and the engineers' lawyers.
The hon. Gentleman touched on our trade relations with Nigeria and questioned the relationship between those trade relations and the position of these two men. Our trade relations are close, but I would not for one moment say that we are favouring those relations in any sense at the expense of these two men or at the expense of our determination to do all that we can to see that their trial is brought forward as speedily as possible.
Britain's relations with Nigeria, a respected and senior fellow member of the Commonwealth family of nations, are long-standing and deep. The links, not least in our legal traditions and the sense of justice and fair play which unite our two countries, remain as strong and vigorous as ever. We will do everything possible to maintain and foster that close relationship.
It is important that the Nigerian authorities should be well aware of the concern of people in this country about the Bristow engineers, and this debate will serve to underline that concern.
As so often, much of our effort must, if it is to be successful, take place out of the public gaze, but I hope that what I have said tonight will reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have done and are doing everything they can to ensure that this unhappy matter is now brought to the speediest possible conclusion.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My hon. Friend referred to the position of Mr. Dikko. Does he consider


that this might be a good opportunity for him to say whether a request has been received from Nigeria for his extradition and, if so, what the response will be?

Mr. Renton: It would not be appropriate for me to go into that on this occasion. We are very concerned about

the position of these two men and this debate is about them. If my hon. Friend will write or speak to me about the position of Mr. Dikko, I will gladly communicate with him.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o' clock.